9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 758 - AT - Income TaxWidening of existing road - New infrastructure facility u/s 80IA(4) - Assessee executed a project named BOT at Hanumangar. He submitted that it was not merely a repairing of road, but re-doing of the entire road work. He claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) in respect of that project. - HELD THAT - Assessee incurred a huge expenditure on widening and strengthening the existing road by constructing additional lane, thus it is a new infrastructure facility, therefore, assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IA(4). Decision in the cases of - SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPN. VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), NEW DELHI 2009 (7) TMI 904 - ITAT DELHI and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY VERSUS TATA HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED 1978 (7) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , relied upon.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for the BOT project at Hanumangarh-Suratgarh Road, Rajasthan. Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Deduction under Section 80IA(4): Background and Claim: The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Pune, which denied the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the project involving the Hanumangarh-Suratgarh Road in Rajasthan. The project was described as a BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer) project, and the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,29,66,129 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2006-07. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim, stating that the project did not qualify as a "new infrastructure facility" as required by Section 80IA(4). Assessing Officer's Findings: The AO observed that the project involved strengthening and improving the existing road rather than developing a new infrastructure facility. The AO relied on CBDT Circular No. 733, which stipulates that the infrastructure facility must be new. The AO concluded that the work undertaken was merely an improvement of the existing road, not the development of a new facility. CIT(A)'s Decision: The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, agreeing that the project did not meet the criteria for a new infrastructure facility. The CIT(A) noted that the project involved increasing the thickness of the road from 25 cm to 37 cm and did not include the addition of new lanes. The CIT(A) also referenced CBDT Circular No. 4/2010, which clarified that widening an existing road by constructing additional lanes could be considered a new infrastructure facility, but simply relaying an existing road would not qualify. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee argued that the project was not merely a repair but involved significant work, including increasing the road's thickness and width to handle heavy traffic, including oil tankers and military vehicles. The project was executed on a BOT basis, and the assessee was authorized to collect tolls. The assessee contended that the work constituted developing a new infrastructure facility, supported by CBDT Circular No. 4/2010. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal examined the contract terms and project specifications, noting that the project involved increasing the road's thickness by 12 cm and widening it by 1 meter on each side. The Tribunal found that the work was not merely maintenance but involved substantial restructuring, making it a new infrastructure facility. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 4/2010, which supports the assessee's claim that widening an existing road by constructing additional lanes qualifies as a new infrastructure facility. Precedents and Legal Principles: The Tribunal cited the case of Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. and Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., where similar projects were considered new infrastructure facilities. The principles from these cases were applied, supporting the assessee's claim. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the project qualified as a new infrastructure facility under Section 80IA(4) and directed the AO to allow the deduction. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction claimed. Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the AO to grant the deduction under Section 80IA(4) for the project. The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 05-04-2013.
|
