Held that the tender document showed that the assessee was to make detailed drawings, design calculations and fabrication, etc., at its own cost; the assessee was responsible for arranging methods of the execution of work along with detailed drawings, sketches, furnishing the details of sufficient plants, equipment, and labour; the assessee had to arrange the land for a temporary site office, office laboratory, parking yard, store yard, labour camp, workshop, etc. ; the assessee was duty-bound to protect the environment on and off the staff site and avoid damage or nuisance, etc., to the persons or to the property of the public; the assessee was to maintain at its own cost sufficient experienced supervisory staff required for the work and arrangement of their housing; the assessee was to have a field laboratory for testing materials; the assessee had to arrange for electric power and water supply, provide traffic safety arrangements like sign board, speed limit, speed breakers, diversion board, etc., pay liquidated damages in case of delay in the completion of project and other defaults; the assessee deployed its resources (material, machinery, labour, etc.) in the construction work and the tender document clearly demonstrated the various risks undertaken by it; the assessee was to furnish a security deposit to the employer and indemnify at the same time for any losses or damage caused to any property or life in course of execution of works; the assessee was responsible for the correction of defects arising in the works at its own cost for which purpose, the principal retained the money payable to the assessee. Thus, it could not be said that the assessee had not taken any risk especially when the assessee had undertaken the project as a whole for the development of the road right from the beginning till the end. The assessee was also taking technical risk, subject to liquidated damages, providing technical manpower. Thus, on perusal of the terms and conditions in the tender documents furnished by the assessee, it was clear that the assessee was not a works contractor simply but a developer and had undertaken the projects of infrastructure facility as envisaged under the provisions of section 80-IA(4A) of the Act in the capacity of the developer. Hence, the Explanation to section 80-IA(13) did not apply to the assessee. the organisations which had awarded the contract were 100 per cent. owned by the State Government and therefore it could not be said that these were private parties. The organisations which awarded contracts to the assessee were arms of the State Government. Held, that only net interest income should be excluded while computing the eligible income under section 80-IA(4) of the Act..(AY.2005-06 to 2011-12)