Section 80 deals with the submission of return of loss. According to Section 80, of the IT Act, carry-forward of losses is allowed only when such loss has been determined in pursuance of return of loss submitted by the assessee on or before the due date for filing returns prescribed u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. However, loss under, ‘Income from house property’, unabsorbed depreciation, capital expenditure on scientific research, and family planning expenditure can be carried forward even if the return is not filed within the due date mentioned u/s 139(1). Loss on account of unabsorbed depreciation, capital expenditure on scientific research and family planning can be carried forward indefinitely and does not require continuity of business in subsequent years. In subsequent years, it can be set off against any income other than salaries. House property loss can be carried forward up to eight years and can be set off only against income under the head, ‘Income from house property’.
Carry forward of losses is allowable even if return of losses is filed within extended period prescribed u/s 139(3) of the Act (I.e. within one year from the end of the assessment year).
Related Cases:
S. 292B, r/w S. 80 and 139 of the IT Act, 1961—Return of income—All four cells of assessees company operating in India filed returns separately within the time prescribed u/s 139(1), subsequently, assessee filed a consolidated return incorporating losses of all the four cells, therefore, all four return filed by assessee in respect of its four cells were valid when those returns were considered in the light of the provisions of S. 292B and subsequent consolidated return filed by assessee would not have the effect of affecting but supplementing the original return and hence, it would relate back to the date when all four separate returns were filed, hence the assessees claim of carry forward of the loss to be set off in the subsequent year is allowed. Nicholas Applegate South East Asia Fund Ltd. Vs. ADIT (2009) 117 ITD 299 (ITAT-Mum)
Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 80(2)(e)—Deduction for commission/margin—Following substantial question of law was framed: “Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding that income derived by the assessee society in the form of commission/margin is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) whereas the facts remained that the society has not derived income from letting out of godowns or warehouse for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities as provided in the Act?” While allowing the appeals, the Rajasthan High Court held that:—”We answer the question framed in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in the same terms as answered by this Court in assessee own case(supra). Consequently, the appeals preferred by the revenue are allowed. The orders of the learned Tribunal as well as of the CIT(A) are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the income of the assessee for the assessment years in question, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, No order as to costs.” CIT Udaipur Vs. Udaipur Sahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd., Udaipur [2009] 9 ITCD 47 (Raj)
S. 72A, 80, 139 of IT Act, 1961—Amalgamation of companies—The BIFR has ample powers to fix the date to make the scheme operative from any day. The BIFR acts on behalf of the Central Government and when the BIFR is satisfied that all the conditions are fulfilled for giving consent for taking rehabilitation measures by way of amalgamation, separate consent by notification by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is not required. Having regard to the language used in S. 26 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, neither the Civil Court nor any other authority including the quasi-judicial authority can pass any order which would impede the operation of the scheme. Therefore, in view of the provisions of the Act which is a special one, the income-tax authority cannot have any jurisdiction to render the operation of the scheme nugatory. In the present matter a sick industrial undertaking was amalgamated with assessee on Jan. 25, 1994 and the assessee for the assessment year 1992-93 filed its return of income but subsequently it filed its revised return on March 31, 1994. Since the assessee was exempted from fulfilling the provision of S. 80 and S. 139 of the Act, 1961, in view of the BIFR order in question, the revised return of loss filed by the assessee should be treated to have been validly filed. CIT Vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 303 (Cal)
S. 80, r/w S. 139 of the IT Act, 1961—Losses—S. 80 permits an assessee to carry forward a loss and seek its set off u/s 72(1) or 73(2) or sub-section (1) of S. 74 or 74A(3) except when, the loss has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with provisions of sub-section (3) of S. 139 therefore the action of the Assessing Officer for not allowing the loss to be carried forward for set off against the future profit is not sustainable. CIT Vs. Nalwa Investment Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 233 (Delhi)
S. 32(2), 72, 80 & 139(3) of IT Act, 1961—Loss—S. 139(3) would have no application, where the loss is determined while giving effect to the orders of the appellate authorities. S. 139(3) would be applicable only where the assessee himself furnished the return disclosing the loss. ACIT Vs. Mehsana District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2012) 145 TTJ 107 (ITAT-Ahd.)
S. 80, 139(1), 139(3) & 139(5) of IT Act, 1961—Loss—As per the provisions of Sub-section (5) of S. 139, in both the situations where the assessee has filed the return of positive income as well as return of loss at the first instance as per the time-limit prescribed and subsequently, files the revised return then the revised return is treated as valid return. Since the assessee has filed its original return declaring the positive income and, therefore, revised return is valid return also and the assessee is entitled to carry forward of long-term capital loss. Ramesh Shah Vs. ACIT (2012) 143 TTJ 166 (ITAT-Mum)
Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 32AB, 33A, 80 and 80J—Audit Report—Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that filing of the audit report u/s 32AB(5) during the assessment proceedings and not along with the return of income would satisfy the requirements of the aforesaid section? While dismissing the appeal of the CIT, Jodhpur, the Divisional Branch of Rajasthan High Court held that:—“Two principles which can be culled out with reference to S. 32AB(5) can be stated thus, that from the perusal of sub-section (5) of S. 32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for claiming deduction u/s 32AB, it is apparent that compliance of S. 2 is necessary. The first requirement is that the statement of accounts for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which deduction is claimed may have been audited and second is that the assessee must furnish along with the return of his income the report of such audit in prescribed form as a proof of accounts. Further the audit forms substantive foundation for claiming allowance and such foundation must exist at the time of filing reference viz. the accounts must have been audited before claiming deduction in a return, and in the absence of which, such deduction cannot be claimed. Compliance of the aforesaid requirement is mandatory before deduction is claimed. So far as such compliance along with return is concerned, it is directory and this procedural compliance can be made as such during the course of assessment proceedings. As in the present case indisputable the accounts had been audited on 25.9.1988 much before the return of income claiming deduction was filed on 2.2.1989, the claim of the assessee to deduction in respect of deposit made with development Bank was rightly allowed by the Tribunal.”
S. 80, 80I, 139(1)(3) of the IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Since the Assessing Officer himself denied of carry forward the business loss by invoking S. 80 of the Act, there is no justification to restrict the allowable deduction u/s 80I by reducing profit by setting off the business loss for the previous year. Southern Crates and Containers Vs. ACIT (ITAT-Cochin)
Income-tax Act, 1961, section 80-0—Deduction—Whether creation of website would fall within the ambit of S. 80-0 of the IT Act 1961 and can it be considered as design within definition of this section?. While allowing the appeal, the ITAT, Chennai ‘B’ Bench held that:—”It is seen that this development work is highly specialized work which includes state of the art programming, technical writing, imaging and animation skills having original ideas, artistic as well as intuitive. In view of the above technical aspects, this development work involved in the creation of web portal www.city4u.com is a highly creative and challenging task and in no circumstances, the same can be equated to the data entry jobs, where the prime focus is to digitize the given content from paper into a text/image format without introducing any changes to the content. In view of this, we hold that creation of website is designing within the definition of the word ‘design’ for the purpose of claiming of deduction u/s 80-O of the Act.” Ontrack Systems Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT-Chennai)…..265
S. 80HH & 80-I of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Tribunal allowed the deduction u/s 80HH and 80-I of the Act, by considering the gross income from two units of the assessee but after the decision of Tribunal, Apex Court interpreted sections 80HHC, 80HHD, 80-I, 80-IA and 80HH, etc. Therefore, matter was remanded to Tribunal for its fresh consideration taking note of law laid down by Apex Court. CIT Vs. Itarsi Oil and Flours Mills Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 654 (Chhattisgarh)
S. 32(1)(iia) & 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The profits derived by way of incentives do not fall within the expression “profit derived from industrial undertaking” in S. 80-IB, of the Act. M.M. Forgings Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2012] 349 ITR 673 (Mad)
S. 80P of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The rental income received by the taxpayer on letting out of the property has to be assessed as ‘Income from house property’. The taxpayer is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of rental income. ITO Vs. Kerala State Co-op. Bang Ltd. [2012] 139 ITD 601 (ITAT-Cochin)
S. 80G, r/w S. 2(15) of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—No notice was issued by the Commissioner to the assessee calling upon it to show cause with regard to violation committed by it to cancel the exemption certificate granted u/s 80G of IT Act. Hence, in the absence of any such notice, the Commissioner committed an illegality in canceling the exemption certificate granted in favour of the assessee. CIT Vs. Rajasthan Jain Charitable Trust.
S. 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (a) of S. 80IB(10) provides that in a case where housing project has been approved by the local authority on or after 01.04.2004 and has been completed within 4 years from the end of the financial year in which the housing project has been approved by the local authority would be entitled for deduction. Explanation (ii) to cl. (a) of S. 80-IB(10), however, puts a rider that the date of completion of construction of the housing project shall be taken to be date on which the completion certificate in respect of housing project is issued by the local authority. Therefore, on failure to furnish completion certificate issued by local authority, assessee is not entitled to deduction S. 80-IB(10), of the Act. Sainath Estates (P.) Vs. DCIT [2013] 142 ITD 370 (ITAT-HYD)
S. 80G of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assessee, an educational society, was granted exemption u/s 80G and it was enjoying the benefit of same since long. The assessee applied for renewal of the exemption but since its entire staff was busy in the examination work so the required information could not be furnished before Commissioner and which resulted an order of declined renewal of exemption. Considering the reasons of not furnishing the necessary information and in the interest of justice one opportunity was allowed to assessee to fulfill the necessary requirements. Guru Gorbind Singh Educational Society Vs. CIT.
S. 80-IC, of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The activity of Flour milling or article or thing which can be called ‘Flour’ is not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IC by virtue of its entry in the negative list in Part B of Schedule XII. Pooja Industries Vs. ITO [2013] 142 ITD 360 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
S. 80-IB, r/w S. 80-IC of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The assessee is engaged in manufacturing/production of Air Conditioner and Microwave Oven and DVD. Since assembling of Air Conditioner, DVD, Microwave would fall within ambit of expression ‘Manufacture’, thus, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act in respect of aforesaid activities. ACIT vs. Dixon Technologies (I)(P.) Ltd. [2013] 142 ITD 484 (ITAT-DELHI)
S. 80-IC, r/w S. 44AB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The mistake committed by the auditors in Form 3CD showing the deduction under chapter VIA as “NIL” cannot be a ground for denying the deduction u/s 80-IC as in the return it had been claimed u/s 80-IC and was correspondingly supported by audit report in Form 10CCB as required u/s 80-IC(vii), r/w S. 80-IA(vii) of the Act. ACIT Vs. Assam Dyeing Plants (P) Ltd. [2013] 142 ITD 532 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
S. 80-IB, r/w S. 80A, 80B and 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—In view of provisions of S. 80-IA(5), loss from eligible business u/s 80-IB(10) cannot be set off against other business income. ACIT Vs. Sterling Developers P. Ltd. [2013] 142 ITD 536 (ITAT-BANG)
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Texturing and twisting of polyester yarn amount to ‘manufacture’ for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, 1961. CIT Vs. Yashasvi Yarn Ltd. [2012] 254 CTR 112 (SC)
S. 80-IB, r/w s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assessing Officer made disallowance of certain expenditures u/s 40(a)(ia). However, he did not allow deduction u/s 80-IB(10) in respect of such amount. Once an amount was disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia), the same constituted a part and parcel of the assessee’s profits and gains from the business, which in turn would comprise a part of its gross total income and would be eligible for deduction in accordance with and to the extent specified by S. 80-IB, in cases there is no other income from which amount could be disallowed in computing profit and gains of business. Thus, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IB in respect of such amount. ITO Vs. Kalbhor Gawade Builders [2013] 141 ITD 612 (ITAT-PUNE)
S. 80-IB(10) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Amendment to S. 80-B(10) and the insertion of cl. (d) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 is a substantive amendment and not a clarificatory amendment and is prospective only and cannot be applied retrospectively. Manan Corporation Vs. ACIT [2013] 255 CTR 415 (Guj)
S. 80P(2)(a)(i) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of income from undertaking commission and interest on PSEB Bonds and IDBI Bonds. CIT Vs. Nawanshahar Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. [2012] 254 CTR 108 (SC)
S. 80HHE of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—Reimbursement of expenses have to be reduced from total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80HHE of the Act. ACIT Vs. Bechtel India P. Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 200 (ITAT-DEL)
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The market rate of electricity is not determined by the forces of demand and supply rather the same is regulated by the Government. The TNEB is a State Government undertaking is selling the electricity to the ultimate consumers. Therefore, the rate at which the consumers get electricity is the market rate. Therefore, the Assessing authority is to recompute profits and gains on the basis of price at which consumers get electricity, for the purpose of S. 80-IA of the Act. Sri Matha Spinning Mills P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2013] 141 ITD 238 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
S. 80-IB(10) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Once approval is granted it dates back to the date of application. In this case the approval was granted on 28th march, 2005 and so the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80-IB(10) from the A.Y. 2005-06, notwithstanding the fact that the sanction letter was communicated to the assessee on 4rth April, 2005 stating that the time for completing the construction starts from 4rth April, 2005 and it ends on 3rd April, 2007. CIT Vs. Akshay Eminerce Developers (P) Ltd. [2013] 259 CTR 266 (KAR)
S. 80-IB(14)(a) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The definition of built up area, as inserted in sub-section (14)(a) of S. 80-IB by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 2004, which came into effect from April 1, 2005 cannot be held to be retrospective. CIT Vs. G. R. Developers [2013] 353 ITR 1 (KARN)
S. 80-I, 143, 148 of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Claim u/s 80-IA of the Act is not admissible on miscellaneous income like sale of import licence, interest, weighbridge income, insurance claim, etc. Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 353 ITR 264 (DEL)
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961, r/w rule 18C of IT Rules, 1962—Deductions—The assessee was recognized as an industrial park under rule 18C on 5-6-2006. In terms of rule 18C, once industrial park is approved by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, CBDT has to suo motu issue concerned notification. Merely because delay in issuing concerned notification occurred on part of CBDT, deduction u/s 80-IA may not be denied more particularly when all other requisite conditions for claiming deduction have been comlied with. CIT Vs. Ackruti City Ltd.
S. 80G of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The objects of the assessee-trust are charitable within the meaning of S. 2(15) of the Act. The word ‘community’ means a society of people living in the same place, under the same law and regulations and who have common rights and privileges. This may apply to Christianity or Muslim but not to Hinduism. Therefore, it cannot be said that Hindu is a separate community or a separate religion. Technically Hindu is neither a religion nor a community. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanuman, goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose. Hence approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) cannot be refused to the assessee-trust on account that the trust exists for religious object. Shiv Mandir Devsttan Panch Committee Sanstan Vs. CIT [2012] 150 TTJ 452 (ITAT-Nag)
S. 80-I & 80-O of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Benefit u/s 80-O, of the Act is to be extended on the taxable income. Therefore, expenditure incurred either by way of foreign exchange or Indian currency is deductible while granting deduction u/s 80-O of the Act. CIT Vs. John Brown Technologies India (P) Ltd. [2013] 257 CTR 370 (KARN)
S. 80-IB, 147, 148 of IT Act, 1961—Reassessment—Since the condition precedent for exercising power of reopening the assessment as provided in S. 147 of the Act is absent, issuance of notice of reassessment by the Assessing Officer by forming a second opinion on the self-same materials without having any “tangible material” is unjustified. Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2013] 350 ITR 131 (Guj)
S. 80-JJA of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The assessee is an individual inter alia engaged in the business of manufacturing fuel briquettes from bagasse. Bagasse is a biodegradable waste of sugar factory and, therefore, on the profits derived from the business of manufacturing fuel briquettes from bagasse, deduction under s.80JJA is allowable. CIT Vs. Smt. Padma S. Bora [2013] 255 CTR 1 (Bom)
S. 80-IB(10), of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—In case there is enhanced income on account of statutory disallowance u/s 43B, 40(a)(ia) and 36(1)(va), deduction u/s 80-IB(10) is allowable. DCIT Vs. Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. [2012] 150 TTJ 590 (ITAT-Pune)
S. 80-IB, r/w s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—Deeming fiction created under any provisions of the Act cannot be imported into a beneficial provisions of the Act. For the purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB, the amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be taken into account to determine project of business. DCIT Vs. Rameshbhai C. Prajapati [2013] 140 ITD 486 (ITAT-Ahd)
S. 80P of the IT Act, 1961—Deductions— MORINDA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Vs. CIT.
S. 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961—Deductions— CIT Vs. ORCHEV PHARMA P. LTD.
S. 80-IA, 148 of IT Act, 1961, art. 226 of Constitution of India—Reassessment—Inquiry at the stage of finding out whether the reassessment notice is valid is only to see whether there are reasonable grounds for the Income-tax Officer to believe and not whether the omission/failure and the escapement of income is established. Since the belief is that the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief is not for the Court to judge. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2013] 353 ITR 450 (GUJ)
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Industrial undertaking—What is to be computed for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80-IA/80-IB is the profits and gains derived from any business of the industrial undertaking. Such income/profits and gains can be computed only by deduction from receipts and income, which have direct nexus with the industrial undertaking. Since all business income/receipts cannot form part of profits derived from the industrial undertaking all business expenses cannot be deducted in computing any profits. A mere commercial connection between the income and the industrial undertaking would not be sufficient. Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 353 ITR 300 (CAL)
S. 80-IA, 80-IB & 115JB of IT Act, 1961—Company—It is a well settled principle that no provision of an enactment should be so interpreted or understood as to render otiose or ineffective any other provision of the same enactment. Therefore, S. 80-IB cannot be interpreted so as to render the provision of S. 115JB of the Act nugatory or otiose or ineffective or does not achieve the purpose for which it is enacted. Sankhla Polymers P. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2013] 257 CTR 185 (KAR)
S. 10(15), 80HHB, 37 of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Loss of one project eligible for deduction u/s 80HHB cannot be set off against the profits of other projects eligible under the same provision. CIT Vs. Bharat Heavey Electricals Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 88 (DEL)
S. 80-IB(10) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The open terrace area cannot be the subject matter of inclusion as a built-up area to deny the benefit of s.80-IB of the Act, 1961. CIT Vs. Sanghvi & Doshi Enterprise [2013] 255 CTR 156 (Mad)
S. 80HHBA, Expln. (a) & 80-IB(10) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The assessee is engaged in the business of development and construction of flats. Mere fact the one of the blocks has units exceeding built-up area of 1500 sq.ft., per se, would not result in nullifying the claim of the assessee for deduction for entire project. In respect of each of the blocks, the assessee is entitled to have the benefit of deduction in respect of residential units satisfying the requirement u/s 80-IB(10)(c) of the Act. Viswas Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013] 255 CTR 149 (Mad)
S. 80-IA—Deduction—IT ACT, 1961—VITP (P.) LTD. Vs. AIT [2012] 138 ITD 407 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
Deduction—Sec. 80-IB—IT ACT, 1961—Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Parekh Plast India (P) Ltd. [2012] 137 ITD 208 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
S.80-IA, of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The carried forward loss of the eligible business is required to the set off first against the income of the subsequent years of the eligible business while determining the profits eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA and set off losses from other sources under the same head is not permissible. CIT Vs. Swarnagiri Wire Insulations Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 245 (Karn)
S. 80-IB, r/w S. 80AB of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—S. 80-IB(10) of the Act clearly specifies that deduction under that sub-section is to be given to an undertaking developing and building housing projects. There is nothing in this sub-section which would require each of the housing projects to be considered by itself as independent undertaking while working out the deduction. If an assessee is able to show that each of its projects are independent with no interlacing, interconnection or independence, then it might be able to convass a claim for deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. Since there is nothing on record to show that each of the projects were independent with no interlacing, interconnection or interdependence of various units, the business is a homogenous one. Therefore, all these projects together have to be considered as a single unit for purpose of working out deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. DCIT Vs. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. [2013] 140 ITD 472 (ITAT-Chennai)
S. 28(iii), 80-IB & 154 of IT Act, 1961—Rectification of mistake—An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Sarraf Export Vs. ITO [2013] 151 TTJ 40 (ITAT-Jd)
S.80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The ownership of land is not a criteria or requirement for the builder of a housing project for claiming deduction u/s 80-IB(10), which otherwise satisfies, i.e., on physical parameters including as to its approval and completion. DCIT Vs. Vertex Homes (P) Ltd. [2013] 140 ITD 300 (ITAT-Hyd)
S. 80-IB, r/w S. 80HHBA of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—A housing project of commercial premises is entitled to 100% deduction, there being no necessity of looking at clause (c) for compliance. Thus the assessee in respect of housing projects would be entitled to the benefit of deduction on satisfaction of clause (a), (b) and (c) of S. 80-IB(10). CIT Vs. Arun Excello Foundations (P) Ltd.
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assessee, a public limited company, is providing satellite based telecommunication solution including VSAT services, and broadband services through satellite. The payment received for providing stipulated services would qualify for deduction u/s 80-IA(4)(ii) of the Act. Essel Shyam Communication Ltd. Vs. CIT
S. 80-I/80-IA, r/w S. 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—Relief to be granted u/s 80-IA would not call for exclusion of tax component in sale price of electricity. Neyveli Lignite Corpn. Ltd. Vs. ACIT
S. 80-IA, r/w S. 33B of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The diagnostic centre is not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of S. 80-IA and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80-IA on MRI and CT scan machines. CIT Vs. Dewan Chand Satyapal
S. 80HH, 80-I of Act, 1961—Deduction—Expenses which do not relate to the industrial undertaking under consideration to other units or to the head office of the assessee, cannot be taken into consideration while computing the deductions u/s 80HH and 80-IA of the Act, 1961. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 366 (Bom)
S. 80-AB, 80-B(5), 80HH, 80-I of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—For the purpose of deduction u/s 80HH and 80-I necessarily one has to undertake the exercise of identifying from the book profits, the income derived from the industrial undertaking qualifying for relief u/s 80HH, included in the working of S. 32AB so as to consider it for computation as per S. 80AB of IT Act, 1961. Corborundum Universal Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2013] 255 CTR 372 (MAD)
S. 80P(2)(a))(i), of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Any banking business providing credit facilities to its members and investing the sum deposited by the members of the society is part of banking business. The income earned on account of interest on deposits made out of the non-SLR fund is attributable to the banking activities of the bank and deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is also allowable on such interest income. CIT Vs. Kangra Cantral Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2012] 254 CTR 306 (HP)
S. 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—Unless rental income represents a recovery of rent paid by the undertaking, it cannot be regarded as profit derived by the industrial undertaking. Since the rental income in the assessee company’s case does not meet this requirement, rental income should be excluded in computing the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. Wipro Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2013] 143 ITD 1 (ITAT-BANG)
S. 80HHE, of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—With the introduction of S. 80HHE w.e.f. 1st April, 1991, for granting deduction of any income earned on providing technical services outside India in connection with the development of computer software, no deduction u/s 80-O can be claimed for such services. CIT Vs. B.T. System & Service Ltd. [2012] 254 CTR 411 (Mad)
S.80-IA & 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The conversion into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers can legitimately be considered to be manufacturing process and such activities are eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA/80-IB of the Act. CIT Vs. Smt. Supriya Gill [2012] 254 CTR 559 (HP)
S. 80AB, 80HHC(3)of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The amendment made to clause (baa) of the Explanation below S. 80HHC which defines “profits of the business” in such a manner as to excluded receipts like interest, commission, etc. , which did not have element of turnover, was introduced prospectively by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, w.e.f. the assessment year 1992-93 and the amendment did not operate retrospectively. Therefore, for the assessment years prior to the assessment year 1992-93, it would not be permissible to exclude interest receipts even if the business from which interest arose did not have an element of turnover. CIT Vs. Anil Chanana [2013] 350 ITR 247 (DELHI)
S. 37, 40A(9), 80G of IT Act, 1961—Business Expenditure—Noticing the facts of diffence between reimbursement and contribution, matter was remanded holding that if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the amount has been reimbursed, the quantified amount shall be certified by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee to enable the assessee to make a claim. Kennamental India Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 209 (SC)
S. 36(1)(iii), 80-IB, 145 of IT Act, 1961—Accounting—Merely on the ground of consumption of electricity being abnormally high viz-a-viz the units of production, the books of account cannot be rejected. Vishal Paper Industries Vs. JCIT [2013] 21 ITR (Trib) 220 (ITAT-Chandigarh)
S. 80-I, of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Amalgamation is not transfer within the meaning of S. 2(47) of the Act while examining the claim of an assessee relating to the benefits u/s 80HH and 80-I of IT Act, 1961. Therefore, disallowance of deduction u/s 80-I on the ground that it is a case of transfer of machinery to a new business is not justified. CIT Vs. Bhuwalka Steel Industrial (2013) 255 CTR 516 (Kar)
S. 12AA, 13(1)(b), 80G(5)(vi), of IT Act, 1961—Charitable Trust—Since there is nothing in the object clause to indicate a bar on the assessee-trust, limiting the expenditure on religious objects to 5 per cent of the total income for a particular year, the assessee’s claim for approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) is not sustainable. Radhika Seva Sansthan Vs. CIT [2012] 20 ITR (Trib) 31 (ITAT-Jaipur)
S. 10B, 80HHC, of IT Act, 1961—Exemption—Exemption u/s 10B is to be allowed without setting off brought forward unabsorbed loss and depreciation from earlier assessment year or the current assessment year. ACIT Vs. Charon Tec P. Ltd. [2012] 20 ITR 487 (Trib) (ITAT-Chennai)
S. 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961—Deductions—ARISUDANA SPINNING MILLS LTD. Vs. CIT.
S. 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961—Deductions—CIT Vs. ZEE TELEFILMS LTD.
S. 80-I of the IT Act, 1961—Deductions—INDIA CINE AGENCIES Vs. DCIT.
S. 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The difference between the bill amount and payment actually made would be the amount generated during the course of business and it would form part of eligible deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. CIT Vs. Pratham Developers.
S. 80A(2), 80AB, 80B(5), 80HH & 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—While calculating the deductions u/s 80HH and 80-IA, the profits of each unit will have to be calculated separately. However, in case if both the units are priority units then the loss of the non-priority unit will have to be taken into account while calculating the deduction. CIT Vs. Him Teknoforge Ltd. [2013] 256 CTR 393 (HP)
S. 80-IA, 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The assessee was engaged in the business of printing and publishing magazines and was having four units for this purpose. The fourth unit carried on job work of printing only and the expenses attributable to the first unit which relate to the publishing business could not be allocated to the fourth unit. Only those expenses which related to the printing work carried on by the assessee in fourth unit were liable to be deducted from the job charges to arrive at the profits eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA or 80-IB as case may be. In the absence of any defect or manipulation found by the Assessing Officer in the books maintained for the fourth unit and in the absence of any material to indicate that the amount charged by the fourth unit from the first unit was not comparable market rates, it would not be open for the revenue to disregard the profit of fourth unit as disclosed by the assessee only on the basis that the profits were significantly higher than the profits earned by the assessee from other undertakings. CIT Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 1 (Delhi)
S. 80-I(2)(i), (iii), (iv) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—It is not necessary that an industrial undertaking must manufacture a commercially new product in order to fulfill the condition as specified in S. 80I(2)(iii) of the Act. The production of any article or thing by an industrial undertaking would be sufficient to entitle the industrial undertaking to claim that the condition u/s 80-I(2)(iii) of the Act is fulfilled. Though in order to qualify as a new industrial undertaking in respect of which deduction is available u/s 80-I of the Act, an industrial undertaking must fulfill the condition of employing 10 or more workers in a manufacturing process however, it may not be denied mere on the basis that the persons who deployed in carrying out the activities of the second and third units were engaged through sister concern. CIT Vs. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 14 (Delhi)
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—In terms of cl. (iii) of sub-section (2) of S. 80-IA, an industrial undertaking ought to manufacture or produce any article or thing in order to qualify for deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. The activity of blending of tea does not amount to manufacture or production and, therefore, it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. DCIT Vs. Sunrise Tea Processing (P) Ltd. (2013) 152 TTJ 661 (ITAT-Pune)
S. 9, 80HHE of IT Act, 1961; r/w art. 7 of DTAA between India and Sweden—Income—As per the provisions of S. 80HHE, profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any other establishment of the assessee situated outside India are to be reduced form ‘export turnover of the business’ and not from ‘total turnover’. CIT Vs. Patni Computer Systems Ltd.
S. 80—Deduction—IT ACT, 1961—TATA CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. ACIT [2012] 138 ITD 458 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
S. 80-IB, r/w S. 263 of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—According to clause (c) of Explanation to S. 263 (1), the Commissioner is debarred from exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 as the subject matter of the appeal is deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act. Fartaleza Developers Vs. CIT [2013] 141 ITD 133 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
S. 80-IC of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—No person manufactures all the various parts that go into the making the new product, by itself. It is imperative that the manufacture of some components is out sourced. Thus in automobile industry, the manufacturing of the electrical equipment is outsourced to more than one suppliers, tyres are sourced from others, paint is obtained from elsewhere so much so the filters and batteries are also gotten from outside. In absence of technical expert, none of the authorities may consider how the product is manufactured or assembled. Until and unless some technical expert examines this aspect, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the production thereof is a manufacturing process or an assembling process. Matter remanded. Aartech Solonics Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 256 CTR 293 (MP)
S. 80P(2)(a)(i) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Income derived by assessee, Co-operative bank from hiring out of safe deposit vault is income from banking and is deductible u/s 80P(2)(2)(a)(i) of IT Act, 1961. ACIT Vs. Buldana Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. [2013] 153 TTJ 728 (ITAT-NAG)
S. 80G of IT Act, 1961—Charitable trust—Once the statute has given perpetuity to the exemption granted u/s 80G(5), the exemption cannot be withdrawn without issuing show-cause notice in terms of the statutory provisions in the manner prescribed by law. CIT Vs. Bhhola Bhandari Charitable Trust [2013] 351 ITR 469 (P&H)
S. 32A, 80HHC, 80-I of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—To claim deduction u/s 80-I of the Act, it is necessary that the industrial undertaking should manufacture or produce any article or thing. There was no evidence to come to a definite conclusion as to whether the assessee is doing manufacturing activity or not and therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer of eliciting and proving the same. CIT Vs. Vijay Granites Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 247 (MAD)
S. 10A, 10B, 14A, 32(2), 40(a)(ia), 80G, 80-IB, 80-IC, 92, 92C, 143(3), 234C, 244A of IT Act, 1961, r. 8D of Rules 1962—Business expenditure—When the assessee is a company, there cannot be any expenditure for personal use. The expenditure can only be disallowed as non-business expenditure, if any. Hence, the cost of club services is in business expenditure and allowable. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013] 22 ITR (Trib) 737 (ITAT-MUM)
S. 80P(2)(a)(i) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Short-term deposits by the bank are income from normal banking business and are, therefore, exempt from the liability to pay income-tax. Where the society is engaged in banking activity, its normal business is to deal in money and credit and, therefore, the money laid out in the form of short-term deposit does not cease to be a circulating capital and interest earned thereon, cannot be other than income engaged from the business of banking, and thus exempt from tax. CIT Vs. Dr. Muzaffarnagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Ltd. [2013] 256 CTR 322 (All)
S. 80 HHE of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—Deduction u/s 80HHE of the Act for data entry is covered by CBDT notification dated 26th Sept., 2000 wherein the job of data entry has been notified as being computer software service. CIT Vs. Malhar Information Services [2013] 257 CTR 69 (BOM)
S. 80-Iof IT Act, 1961—Deduction—For the purposes of computation relief u/s 80-I, relief granted u/s 80HH cannot be deducted from the gross total income. CIT Vs. Hindustan Pipe Udyog Ltd. [2013] 255 CTR 389 (ALL)
Sec. 80-I and 80IA of the Income tax Act, 1961—Manufacturing Activity—Whether the activity of bottling LPG Gas amounts to production or manufacturing activity for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC, 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that subject activity amounts to production/manufacturing for the purpose of Section 80HHC, 80I and 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by relying upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 9455 of 2011 dated 19/1/2012 in the matter of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd. and others and the consequent order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman dated 26/3/2012. Bombay High Court while dismissing the appeal of the revenue held that:—”Since the Tribunal in the impugned order has relied upon the decision of this Court and the consequent order of the Electricity Ombudsman to hold that the activity of bottling LPG Gas is a very specialized process and the same is considered to be an activity of manufacture. The Tribunal in the impugned order had observed to the effect that the word used in Section 80HH, 80I/80IA of the Act is manufacturing or production. The term production is wider than the word manufacture. Therefore, every activity which bring into existence a new product would constitute production. The impugned order records a finding of fact that the process of bottling the LPG Gas into cylinder makes the same marketable on execution of the process. It therefore follows that a new product comes into existence.” [2013] 26 ITCD 49 (BOMBAY)
S. 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assesses whose industrial undertakings are recognized as “Small Scale Industries” or “Located in an industrially backward State” are eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act, even if they manufacture, article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. DCIT Vs. Eye Photonics India (P) Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 617 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
S. 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—Even if the assessee is not a small scale industry, still it is entitled for claim of deduction in view of S. 80-IB(4) since it is operating from an industrial backward State. DCIT Vs. Vinbros & Co. [2013] 141 ITD 626 (ITAT-CHANNAI)
S. 80-IB of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—Interest income on FDRs, cannot be said to be an income flowing from the business activity of industrial undertaking and thus, cannot be computed for deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. Asian Cement Industries Vs. ITAT.
S. 80-IA, 263 of IT Act, 1961—Revision—Where the Assessing Officer fails to exercise the quasi judicial power vested in him and passes an order without application of mind and not in accordance with law, and without making proper verification, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer makes the order erroneous, open to exercise of jurisdiction of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act, coupled with the fact that such an order had resulted in loss of tax, thus making it an order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Vodafone Essar Ltd. Vs. CIT [2013] 23 ITR (Trib) 147 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
S. 40(a)(ia), 80-IB(10) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Even if a certain expenditure which was incurred by the assessee for the purpose of developing house project was not allowable by virtue of S. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, since the assessee had not deducted the tax at source as required under law, it cannot be denied that such disallowance would ultimately go to increase the assessee’s profit from the business of developing housing project. Whatever be the ultimate profit of the assessee as computed even after making disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, would qualify for deduction as provided under the law. ITO Vs. Keval Construction [2013] 354 ITR 13 (GUJ)
S. 12A, 80G of IT Act, 1961—Charitable purpose—In the absence of any documentary evidence with regard of making expenses an any charitable activity, trust is not entitled for registration. DSE-Economics Placement Cell Vs. DIT [2013] 23 ITR (Trib) 121 (ITAT-DEL)
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assessee is not entitled to the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act on the interest on employees loan and advances, interest on margin money and interest income dues towards income tax refund. Essar Power Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013] 142 ITD 251 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
S. 80G of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assessee was in the process of establishing an eye hospital and enjoying exemption u/s 80G of the Act. Since the hospital was not started and therefore, plant and machinery could not be purchased and accordingly the assessee kept the grant in fixed deposits. Further there was no occasion to misuse the funds. Hence, the assessee’s claim for renewal of exemption is allowable. CIT Vs. Association for Prevention of Blindness
S. 80P of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assessee is a co-operative bank and interest earned by it on deposits of its non-statutory liquid ration funds is income from banking business and exempt u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. CIT Vs. Gulshan Mercantile Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.
S. 80P of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—The assessee, a co-operative bank earned interest on deposits of non-SLR funds and which would qualify for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. CIT Vs. Muzaffarnagar District Co-operative Bank Ltd.
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deductions—An enactment of the parliament or the State Legislature can be questioned only on the ground of lack of competence or on the ground that the statute violates the fundamental rights or any other constitutional provisions. Explanation inserted in sub-section (4) of S. 80-IA introduced by the Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 with effect from 1-4-2000 is constitutionally valid. Katira Construction Ltd. Vs. Union of India
S. 80G of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—Once the statute has given perpetuity to the exemptions granted u/s 80G(5), the approval cannot be withdrawn without issuing show-cause notice in terms of the statutory provisions in the manner prescribed by law. CIT Vs. Shri Vishav Namdhari Sangat [2013] 354 ITR 33 (P&H)
S. 80G of IT Act, 1961—Charitable purpose—It is not possible to grant exemption without disturbing the status of mutual concern. The assessee trust was an extension of the mutual Club of Masons and the mother body had not sacrificed or surrendered its mutual status. Hence, the status of mutuality reflected on the assessee trust which could not claim the status of a charitable institution. In absence of surrendering its status of mutuality by the mother body, it is not possible to treat the assessee as an independent charitable institution. The lodge of Universal Charity 273EC Charitable Trust Vs. DIT [2013] 23 ITR (Trib) 25 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
S. 40(a)(ia), 80-IB(10) of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The benefit u/s 80-IB(10) would be available if the developer has dominant control over the project and developer has dominant control over the project and has developed the land at its own cost and risk and the benefit would be denied if the assessee had entered into an agreement for a fixed remuneration as a contractor to construct or develop the project on behalf of the land owner. ITO Vs. Keval Construction [2013] 23 ITR (Trib) 820 (ITAT-AHD)
S. 80-IB(10), 147, 148 of IT Act, 1961—Reassessment—Mere filing of subsequent appeal under the Act against the reassessment on the merits cannot stand in the way of the petitioner in getting the benefit of moving a writ application on the limited question. Question of existence of alternative remedy is a factor, which is important at the time of entertaining the application but such question loses its importance once the High court has entertained the writ application and invited the respondent to file affidavit and the respondent had already filed such affidavit. Vishwanath Engineers Vs. ACIT [2013] 352 ITR 549 (GUJ)
S. 80C of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—A plain reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) shows that the deduction u/s 80C shall be made if the sums specified in sub-section (2) are paid or deposited in the previous year. It does not place any condition about the source for making the payments or deposits. Thus, the payments of LIC premiums made during the previous year out of loan funds are also eligible for deduction u/s 80C, of the Act. Goutham Reddy Vs. ITO [2013] 154 TTJ 219 (ITAT-COCHIN)
S. 80-IA(5), 147 of IT Act, 1961—Reassessment—where the reopening of assessment is before the expiry of a period of four year from the end of the relevant assessment years, the first proviso to S. 147 is not applicable and true and full disclosure of the material facts is not a relevant consideration. Since there was nothing to show consideration of the provisions of S. 80-IA(5) by the Assessing Officer while framing the original assessment, reassessment proceedings stood rightly initiated. Hercules Hoists Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013] 22 ITR (Trib) 527 (ITAT-MUM)
S. 80-IA of IT Act, 1961—Deduction—The assessee is a mere contractor executing civil works for an infrastructure enterprises and is covered under the Explanation to S. 80-IA and, therefore, not eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. Yojaka Marine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2013] 354 ITR 530 (Karn)
S. 80M, Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Manganlal Chaganlal (P) Ltd.
S. 80M Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Emrald Co. Ltd.
S. 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Baroda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd.
S. 80HH, r/w S. 80J, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Ceekay Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT.
S. 80J of the Income-tax, 1961–Deductions–Chief Commissioner (Administration) Vs. Krishi Disc (P) Ltd.
S. 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT vs. Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.
S. 80HH, r/w S. 80-I, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT.
S. 80C Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Vidya Sagar Dewan & Sons.
S. 80U Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Gurbux Singh Vs. CIT.
S. 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. H.C. Verma.
S. 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Ajmani Industries.
S. 80-IA, r/w S. 80HHC, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Rochi Ram & Sons.
S. 80J—Deductions—IT ACT, 1961—CIT Vs. Adarsh Cold Storage.
S. 80M, r/w S. 67A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIt Vs. Puja Investments (P) Ltd.
S. 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Kansal Hosiery Works.
S. 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Jamnagar Jilla Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd.
S. 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. H.M. Cold Storage.
S. 80HH, r/w S. 80-I, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco Products (P) Ltd.
S. 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Kanodia & Sons Vs. CIT.
S. 80HH, r/w S. 80-I, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Taj Fire Works Industries.
S. 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT.
S. 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Delhi Tourism & T.D.C. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 285 ITR 114 (DEL)
S. 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. District Co-operative Federation Ltd.
S. 80RRA of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–K.R. Pradeep Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2006] 203 CTR 147 (DEL)
S. 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Vidya Bal Mandali Vs. CIT.
S. 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Subharati Krishan Kumar Bhatnagar Charitable Trust Vs. CIT.
S. 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deduction–CIT Vs. District Co-operative Federation.
S. 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Computer Graphics Ltd.
S. 80-I, r/w S. 28(i) and 80-IA, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs. CIT.
S. 80P, r/w S. 143(1A), of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs. JCIT.
S. 80-IC, r/w S. 6, 245Q and 245U, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Ms. Meenu Sahi Mamik Vs. CIT.
S. 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Raj Kumar Singh & Co.
S. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Liberty Shoes Ltd. Vs. CIT.
S. 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Liberty India Vs. CIT.
S. 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Suresh Sunderrao Nayak Vs. M.K. Pandey, Director of Income-tax.
S. 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Bee Pee Poultries.
S. 80-I, r/w S. 80-IA, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Nu-Cork Products (P) Ltd.
S. 80AB, r/w S. 80-I, of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. R.P.G. Telecoms Ltd.
S. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Dewan Kraft System (P) Ltd.
S. 80HHD of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd.
S. 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deduction–CIT Vs. Nawanshahar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
S. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–Scoop Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO.
S. 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961–Deductions–CIT Vs. Metalways (P) Ltd.
Reference:
As Per Section 80, of the Income Tax Act, 1961-
Submission of return for losses
- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed [in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139], shall be carried forward and set off under sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A].