{"id":3443,"date":"2011-07-12T16:31:13","date_gmt":"2011-07-12T11:01:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3443"},"modified":"2011-07-12T16:31:13","modified_gmt":"2011-07-12T11:01:13","slug":"laxmi-civil-engineering-pvt-ltd-vs-acit-itat-pune-s-80-ia4-deduction-available-even-to-contractor-who-merely-develops-but-does-not-operate-maintain-the-infrastructure-facility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/laxmi-civil-engineering-pvt-ltd-vs-acit-itat-pune-s-80-ia4-deduction-available-even-to-contractor-who-merely-develops-but-does-not-operate-maintain-the-infrastructure-facility\/","title":{"rendered":"Laxmi Civil Engineering Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=472\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=472&varname2=laxmi_80_IA_4_contractor_developer.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (laxmi_80_IA_4_contractor_developer.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 80-IA(4) deduction available even to contractor who merely develops but does not operate &#038; maintain the infrastructure facility<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Relying on the judgement of the <strong>Larger Bench<\/strong> in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/b-t-patil-sons-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-larger-bench\">B. T. Patil &#038; Sons<\/a><\/strong> 126 TTJ 577 (Mum), the assessee\u2019s claim for deduction u\/s 80-IA(4) was denied by the Tribunal on the ground that the <em>assessee was only a contractor and had not complied with all the conditions specified in sub-clauses (a), (b) &#038; (c) of clause (i) of s. 80-IA(4)<\/em>. The order was recalled pursuant to the assessee\u2019s MA claiming that the judgement of the Bombay High Court in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/www.indiankanoon.org\/doc\/234498\/\">ABG Heavy Industries Ltd<\/a><\/strong> 322 ITR 323 covered the issue in its favour. HELD deciding the issue afresh:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The issues as to (i) whether the word \u201ccontractor\u201d is synonymous with \u201cdeveloper\u201d within the meaning of s. 80-IA(4)(i) and (ii) whether the condition in clause (c) is applicable to a developer who is not carrying on the business of operating and maintaining the infrastructural facilities are covered by the judgement in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/f\/o.php?url=http:\/\/www.indiankanoon.org\/doc\/234498\/\">ABG Heavy Industries<\/a><\/strong> 322 ITR 323 (Bom). There, it was held that the department\u2019s contention that since the assessee was not \u201c<em>operating and maintaining the facility<\/em>\u201d, he was not eligible for s. 80-IA(4) deduction was wrong because <strong>a harmonious reading of s. 80-IA(4) led to the conclusion that the deduction was available to an assessee who (i) develops or (ii) operates and maintains or (iii) develops, operates and maintains the infrastructure facility<\/strong>. The 2001 amendment made it clear that <strong>the three conditions of development, operation and maintenance were not intended to be cumulative in nature<\/strong>. A developer who is only developing the infrastructure facility cannot be expected to fulfill the condition in sub-clause (c) which is an <strong>impossibility<\/strong> and requiring it to be fulfilled will be an <strong>absurdity<\/strong>. The result is that even a contractor who <strong>merely develops but does not operate or maintain<\/strong> the infrastructure facility is <strong>eligible<\/strong> for s. 80-IA(4) deduction (<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/b-t-patil-sons-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-larger-bench\">B.T.Patil &#038; Sons Belgaum vs. ACIT<\/a><\/strong> 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) impliedly held not good law). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The issues as to (i) whether the word \u201ccontractor\u201d is synonymous with \u201cdeveloper\u201d within the meaning of s. 80-IA(4)(i) and (ii) whether the condition in clause (c) is applicable to a developer who is not carrying on the business of operating and maintaining the infrastructural facilities are covered by the judgement in <strong>ABG Heavy Industries<\/strong> 322 ITR 323 (Bom). There, it was held that the department\u2019s contention that since the assessee was not \u201c<em>operating and maintaining the facility<\/em>\u201d, he was not eligible for s. 80-IA(4) deduction was wrong because <strong>a harmonious reading of s. 80-IA(4) led to the conclusion that the deduction was available to an assessee who (i) develops or (ii) operates and maintains or (iii) develops, operates and maintains the infrastructure facility<\/strong>. The 2001 amendment made it clear that <strong>the three conditions of development, operation and maintainence were not intended to be cumulative in nature<\/strong>. The result is that even a contractor who <strong>merely develops but does not operate or maintain<\/strong> the infrastructure facility is <strong>eligible<\/strong> for s. 80-IA(4) deduction (<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/b-t-patil-sons-vs-acit-itat-mumbai-larger-bench\">B.T.Patil &#038; Sons Belgaum vs. ACIT<\/a><\/strong> 126 TTJ 577 (Mum) impliedly held not good law)<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/laxmi-civil-engineering-pvt-ltd-vs-acit-itat-pune-s-80-ia4-deduction-available-even-to-contractor-who-merely-develops-but-does-not-operate-maintain-the-infrastructure-facility\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3443\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}