ACIT Vs Ranjit Buildcon Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee has established that they were the sole developer in the contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, deduction duly allowed.
Facts- The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction and filed its original return of income on 30.09.2008 thereby declaring income of Rs.11,38,18,730/- after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of Rs.6,38,87,090/- but the assessee did not fulfil the conditions laid down u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act for allowing the deduction. AO held that any person who execute the work contract entered into with undertaking or enterprises shall not be eligible for the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act and thus further concluded that the assessee company is not entered in BOT, BOOT &BOLT System, therefore, not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and thus made disallowance of Rs.6,38,87,090/-.
CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by AO. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub-delegation of the work awarded to the assessee company. The maintaining of the said infrastructure in each of these 17 projects though deferred but the maintenance is more than 30 months that means almost more than two years and, therefore, the assessee has established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A).
