9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1892 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - AO observed that assessee is acting merely as a works contractor and therefore it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2014 (1) TMI 1879 - ITAT KOLKATA assessee has been paying VAT on the turnover in respect of various projects. The projects which have been undertaken by the assessee in West Bengal and Bihar are also such projects which are assessable under the relevant states VAT Laws In the circumstances we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4) as claimed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) being treated as ultra vires by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. 2. Deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the assessee's work qualifies as a 'work contract' or 'development of infrastructure.' Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the AO's Order The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in treating the AO's order as ultra vires and annulling it, arguing that the assessee failed to file any objection to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act within the stipulated time. The CIT(A) was said to have overlooked this procedural lapse despite ample opportunities provided to the assessee. Issue 2: Deduction under Section 80IA The primary contention of the Revenue was against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act. The AO had disallowed this deduction on the grounds that the assessee was merely acting as a works contractor and not developing any infrastructure facility. The CIT(A), however, reversed the AO's decision by referencing previous judgments, particularly those involving Simplex-Subhash JV and Simplex-Somdatt Builders JV, where similar issues were adjudicated in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that the facts and circumstances of those cases were identical to the present case, thereby justifying the allowance of the deduction under Section 80IA. Issue 3: Qualification as 'Work Contract' or 'Development of Infrastructure' The Revenue argued that the assessee's activities should be classified as a 'work contract' and not as 'development of infrastructure,' which would disqualify them from claiming the deduction under Section 80IA. The CIT(A) disagreed, citing that the project undertaken by the assessee was a turnkey project awarded by Konkan Railway, which involved the development of an infrastructure facility. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing its own previous rulings and those of other benches, which consistently held that such turnkey projects qualify as infrastructure development rather than mere work contracts. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's activities fell outside the definition of 'work' as per Section 194C of the Act, thereby entitling them to the deduction under Section 80IA. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's arguments, noting that the issue had been consistently adjudicated in favor of the assessee in similar cases. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue regarding the validity of the AO's order and the classification of the assessee's work were left open and not adjudicated further. Final Order: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 08/11/2017.
|
