Which cases are most cited on Section 80IE?

CIT v. Sportking India Ltd. (324 ITR 283) — 22 citing judgments; CIT v. Panama Chemical Works (108 Taxmann 189) — 3 citing judgments; Meghalaya Mineral Product v. ACIT (38 ITR (Trib) 186) — 3 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 80IE?

BharatTax indexes 99 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 80IE of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Sportking India Ltd. (324 ITR 283) is the decision most relied on for Section 80IE, cited in 22 judgments. Insurance compensation received for damage to stock-in-trade or raw materials is considered profit or loss from an industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.143

Section 80IE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 143 (Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings in North-Eastern States) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 143 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 80IE is CIT v. Sportking India Ltd. (324 ITR 283), cited in 22 of the 99 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 80IE

CIT v. Sportking India Ltd.

324 ITR 283 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Insurance compensation received for damage to stock-in-trade or raw materials is considered profit or loss from an industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Panama Chemical Works

108 Taxmann 189 · 2000 · Reported

citing judgments

Meghalaya Mineral Product v. ACIT

38 ITR (Trib) 186 · 2015 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 80IE

Lok Everest Co-Op Hsg Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 703/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ISection 80P

Twinstar Jupiter Coop Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 81

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

ITA 382/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 382/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Halmira Estate Tea Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of 23, Pankaj Mullick Sarani Vs Income Tax (2), Kolkata Ballygunge Circular Road Kolkata - 700019 [Pan : Aaach6210N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Bhide, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 10/06/2020, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts Of The Case The Order Passed By Pcit(2) Kolkata On 10.06.2020 U/S Of The Act, Is Bad In Law. 2. That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 10.11.2017 U/S. 143(3) After Due Consideration Of Documents Submitted By The Appellant Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue & Therefore The Order Appealed Against Be Cancelled.”

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 575/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 144ASection 32ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80I

York Print Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Shillong, Shillong

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

Natural Panel Industries Private Limited, Margherita vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Digboi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 10/GTY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 80I

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Guwahati vs. M/S. Shiv Steel Industries, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 176/GTY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 176/Gty/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S. Shiv Steel Industries Circle-4 Vs Block Dhanuka Complex S.J. Road Athgaon, Kamrup Guwahati - 781001 [Pan : Abefs6132J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Acit, Sr. D/R & Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Guwahati -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 28/02/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Manufacturing Of Tmt Bars. Income Of Rs.20,58,660/- Declared In The E-Return Filed On 29/09/2013. Case Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Validly Serving Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. While Computing The Total Income, The Assessee Claimed Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act In Respect Of Vat Remission At Rs. 1,99,13,704/-. The Assessee Filed Form 10Ccb Eligibility Certificate, Registration Certificate From Inspector Of Factories, Assam & Other Details.

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, ACIT, Sr. D/R & Shri Arun

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 28Section 80I

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2279/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 92C

DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S the Grob Tea Company Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of The Grob Tea Company Ltd. Income - Tax, Circle - 4(1), Vs. 86A, Topsia Road, Kolkata- Kolkata. 700046. (Pan: Aabct 3475 C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar Patodia, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Bhabani Roy, Agartala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Agartala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/GTY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 41/Gau/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Bhabani Roy,..........................................Appellant C/O. Rajesh Roy, B.K. Road, Palace Compound, East Agartala-799001, Tripura [Pan: Ahmpr0715L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,................................Respondent Ward-1, Agartala, Aayakar Bhawan, Mantribari Road, Agartala-799001, Tripura Appearances By: Shri Debaprasasd Majee, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 16, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 14, 2023 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Mahesh Chachan, Guwahati vs. Pr. Conmmissioner of Income Tax-2, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Mahesh Chachan Pr. Cit, Guwahati - 2 Kayal Market, Fancy Bazar, Vs. Guwahati-781001. Pan: Afxpc 3051 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’ Dated 30.08.2019 For Assessment Year 2015- 16 Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-4(2), Guwahati, Dated 05.04.2017. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assesee Is On Challenging The Treatment Of Vat Remission As Not Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ie Of The Act By Invoking The Provisions Of Revision U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

Natural Panel Industries Private Limited, Margherita vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Digboi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/GTY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.44/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natural Panel Industries Pvt. Ltd………….......................……….……Appellant 1 No. Makum Pather, P.O. Margherita, Tinsukia, Assam – 786181. [Pan: Aaacw1839J] Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Digboi…… ……..…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 15, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Is At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 16.03.2021. 2. Though The Assessee Has Filed Adjournment Application But Looking To The Grounds Of Appeal Which Leads To Disallowance Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi At Rs.6,26,597/- & Since The Issue Has Already Been Decided By The Hon’Ble Apex Court In Favour Of The Revenue, We Decide To Hear The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr, Since, Even If The Assessee Has Appeared, There Would Be No Change In The Outcome Of This Appeal. 3. From The Grounds Of Appeal, We Notice That So Far As The Disallowance Of Pf & Esi Is Concerned, We Find That The Hon’Ble

Section 80I

Tapash Kumar Saha, Darrang vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mangaldoi, Mangaldoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati14 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.7/Gty/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tapash Kumar Saha……….……......…..........…..................….…… Appellant Kharupetia, Jayant Nagar, Darrang, Assam - 784115. [Pan: Ahdps8801K] Vs. Ito, Ward-Mangaldoi..…...………....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Mody, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 14, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 14, 2023 आदेश / Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Regarding Denial Of Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80Ie Of The Act.

Section 250Section 80I

Control Print Ltd., Mumbai-400059 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai-400020

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1252/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Salvamani

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69ASection 801ESection 80I