{"id":60646,"date":"2026-06-08T13:14:35","date_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:44:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/gulermak-tpl-joint-venture-v-itat-2025-307-taxman-597-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2026-06-08T13:14:35","modified_gmt":"2026-06-08T07:44:35","slug":"gulermak-tpl-joint-venture-v-itat-2025-307-taxman-597-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/gulermak-tpl-joint-venture-v-itat-2025-307-taxman-597-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Gulermak TPL Joint Venture v. ITAT (2025) 307 Taxman 597 (Bom.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee, an un-incorporated joint venture, entered into a contract with a nodal agency, namely, LMRCL, established for the purpose of administering and regulating metro rail in the city of Lucknow, under which assessee was to design and construct an underground tunnel and 3 underground metro stations for a fixed consideration. Assessee filed its return claiming a deduction under section 80-IA for developing an infrastructure facility on profits earned from the aforesaid contract with LMRCL. Assessing Officer denied deduction under section 80-IA on the ground that assessee was only a contractor and not a developer of an infrastructure facility and, further, the condition as set out in section 80-IA(4)(i)(b) was also not satisfied as agreement was not entered into with Central Government, State Government, Statutory Authority or a Local Authority. On appeal, the CIT(A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.\u00a0 Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Miscellaneous application of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal.\u00a0 On writ allowing the petition, the Court held that the Tribunal, while coming to the conclusion that assessee was a mere contractor, had failed to consider various clauses of the agreement entered into by assessee with LMRCL. Court held that since LMRCL was appointed as a nodal agency by the Central and State Governments for the administration of the metro rail project in Lucknow, the agreement entered into by assessee with LMRCL would satisfy the requirement of section 80-IA(4)(i)(b). Since the Tribunal had not considered the evidence on record and had merely recorded bare conclusions without setting out any reasons in support thereof, the order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal afresh. (AY. 2017-18,\u00a0 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Contractor-Developer-Tribunal had not considered evidence on record and had merely recorded bare conclusions without setting out any reasons in support thereof, order of Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act was set aside and matter was remitted back to Tribunal for disposal afresh on merits. [S.80IA(4)(1)(b),254(1),  Art. 226]<\/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_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_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fMa","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60646","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=60646"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60646\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60647,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60646\/revisions\/60647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}