2010 (1) TMI 774 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of deduction claim u/s 80IA(4) in respect of income derived from the activity of development of eligible infrastructure facilities - Assessing Officer noticed that these assessees were engaged in the business of civil contracts for construction of roads highways etc they were not engaged in the business of developing any infrastructure facility - Held that - conditions for claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) have not been satisfied - order of the CIT (A)upheld. Levy of Interest u/s 234B - whether consequential in nature - held that - In the present case the assessee did not pay advance tax on the amount of deduction claimed because of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Engineering 2004 (6) TMI 245 - ITAT BOMBAY-F by which deduction u/s 80IA(4) was held allowable. - Later the larger Bench overruled the decision of Patel Engineering and in view of these facts the deduction claimed u/s 80IA was held not allowable. - levy of interest u/s 234B cancelled. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of deduction u/s 80IA(4) for income from infrastructure development.
2. Levy of interest u/s 234B.
3. Non-granting of deduction for tax deducted at source.

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - Denial of deduction u/s 80IA(4): The appeals involved assessees contesting the denial of deductions claimed under section 80IA(4) for income derived from infrastructure development. The Assessing Officer found that the assessees were not engaged in developing infrastructure facilities as per the conditions of the section. The CIT (A) upheld this decision, citing the larger Bench's ruling against the assessees. The Tribunal concurred, holding that the conditions for claiming the deduction were not met, based on the recent decision. The assessees' claim was disallowed due to not satisfying the criteria for the deduction.

2. Issue 2 - Levy of interest u/s 234B: The second issue pertained to the imposition of interest u/s 234B on the assessed income. The assessees argued that they did not pay advance tax on the profit claimed as deduction u/s 80IA(4) due to previous Tribunal decisions in their favor. They contended that the chargeability of interest was not justified, emphasizing their bonafide belief based on earlier rulings. Various cases were cited to support the argument that the assessees acted in good faith in not paying advance tax. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant case laws, held that the levy of interest u/s 234B was not justified as the assessees had acted in good faith based on previous favorable decisions.

3. Issue 3 - Non-granting of TDS deduction: In one of the cases, an additional issue was raised regarding the non-granting of a deduction for tax deducted at source. The matter was brought before the CIT (A) but was not adjudicated upon. The Tribunal decided to restore this issue to the CIT (A) for a proper hearing and decision. The issue of deduction for tax deducted at source was remanded for further consideration and decision by the CIT (A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed both appeals, denying the deduction u/s 80IA(4) and canceling the levy of interest u/s 234B. The issue of deduction for tax deducted at source was remanded for proper adjudication. The judgments were pronounced on 18.1.2010.