Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Om Metals Infraprojects vs. CIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Om Metals Infraprojects vs. CIT (ITAT Jaipur)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 13, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (om_metals_80_IA_developer.pdf)

Even a Contractor is a “Developer” for purposes of s. 80-IA(4)

Where the assessee entered into an agreement with the Vidharbha Irrigation department for supply, erection and installation of dam gates and the question arose whether it was “developing an infrastructural facility” so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) or it was a mere contractor, HELD:

(i) Though the Explanation to s. 80IA (4) inserted by the FA 2007 w.r.e.f 1.4.2000 provides that s. 80-IA shall not apply to a person executing a works contract, the assessee was not a mere “contractor”. The term “developer” means a person who makes things happen and as the assessee was mobilizing and synthesizing people, plans, technical expertise, supervision, co-ordination and control etc, it could be regarded as the developer. The term “contractor” is not essentially contradictory to the term “developer”.

(ii) The Explanation to s. 80IA does not apply to a works contract entered into by the Government and the enterprise. It only applies to a work contract entered into between the enterprise and other party’s “sub-contractor”. The amendment merely aims at denying deduction to the sub-contractor who executes a works contract with the enterprise;

(iii) It is not required that the developer should also “operate and maintain” the infrastructure facilities so as to be eligible for deduction.

Related Posts:

  • Sunshine Metals & Alloys vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants. The assessee has also furnished its bank statement to show that the money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals from the banks…
  • Sonu Khandelwal vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) even if the assessment is reopened to make reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of the appellate authority the requirement of sanction U/s 151 is mandatory for issuing notice U/s 147 of the Act. Even otherwise from the plain reading of Section 150(1)…
  • ITO vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (ITAT Jaipur) There is no dispute that Section 206C or any other provisions of the Income Tax Act do not provide any limitation for passing the order by the Assessing Officer U/s 206C(6)/206C(7) of the Act holding the assessee in default due to failure to collect tax at source. However, non-providing the…
  • Safeflex International Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is thus seen that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 had initially inserted sub-section (6) in section 115JB of the Act to provide that the provisions of section 115JB shall not apply to income accrued or arising on or after 1-4-2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered,…
  • DCIT vs. Saurabh Mittal (ITAT Jaipur) The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to controvert the fact duly established by the supporting evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, dematerialization of shares in the DEMAT account, allotment of the shares amalgamated new entity in lieu of the earlier two companies of…
  • Pramod Kumar Lodha vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) The decision of the AO holding the transaction as bogus and denying the claim of long term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is based on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the ITO Investigation…

Related Judgements

  1. ACIT vs. M/s Triace (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the CIT (A) decided the ground of reopening against the assessee but decided the ground of merits in favour of the assessee, the assessee is entitled, in an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal, to urge, under Rule … ACIT vs. M/s Triace (ITAT Mumbai) Read…
  2. Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi 5 Member Spl Bench) 

    It is a precondition to invoking s. 158BD that the AO must, in the course of s. 158BC proceedings, record satisfaction that the income belongs to the other person. In the absence of such finding, s. 158BD cannot be invoked. The satisfaction must be objective and not subjective….
  3. DCIT vs. Balaji Shipping (1.6 MB) (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee had earned freight income by transporting cargo in international traffic through ‘slot charter’ arrangements on ships owned by other enterprises and the question arose whether such profits arose from “operation of ships”, held: that in view of the OECD Commentary, Article 9 of the India-UK DTAA…
  4. DCIT vs. MDS Switchgear (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the AO had granted deduction under sections 80HH & 80-I in the year of formation of the new industrial undertaking, he could not, in a subsequent year, deny the deduction on the ground that the conditions are not fulfilled, if he has not withdrawn the deduction granted in…
  5. ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Of the two formulas available, the formula adopted by the assessee, i.e. of taking the difference between the indexed book value on the date of conversion and the sale proceeds as long-term capital gains, being beneficial to the assessee, should be adopted. No part of the gains can be…