{"id":31196,"date":"2022-12-10T13:06:19","date_gmt":"2022-12-10T07:36:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dcit-v-eshwarnath-construction-2022-194-itd-592-chennai-trib\/"},"modified":"2022-12-10T13:06:19","modified_gmt":"2022-12-10T07:36:19","slug":"dcit-v-eshwarnath-construction-2022-194-itd-592-chennai-trib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/dcit-v-eshwarnath-construction-2022-194-itd-592-chennai-trib\/","title":{"rendered":"DCIT v. Eshwarnath Construction. (2022) 194 ITD 592 (Chennai) (Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee is\u00a0 a contractor for Indian Railways and carried on work of construction of rail over bridges, foot over bridges, construction of new railway station buildings, etc..\u00a0 Assessing Officer denied claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) on ground that only enterprises which are engaged in activity of development, operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility are eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act.\u00a0 Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal. On appeal by revenue\u00a0 the Tribunal held that\u00a0 for claiming deduction under section 80-IA(4) the assessee\u00a0 has to satisfy all conditions mentioned in sub-section 4(i)(a)\/(b)\/(c)\u00a0 of the Act. On the facts the assessee is\u00a0 only a partnership firm, i.e., it was not a creation of statute, but was a body of individuals regulated by statute, namely, Partnership Act, hence, it failed to satisfy applicability clause under section 80-IA(4)(i) further the\u00a0 assessee was found to have executed works contract attracting Explanation to sub-section (13) of section 80-IA. Accordingly the appeal of Revenue was allowed. (AY. 2009-10, 2011-12)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure  development-Partnership firm-Executed works contract-Not eligible deduction [S. 800IA(4), 80IA(13)] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","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":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-87a","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31196"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31196\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":31197,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31196\/revisions\/31197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}