2017 (4) TMI 1608 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA(4) denied - Proof of infrastructural facility in its clause (a) as road including toll road, bridge or a rail system - HELD THAT - we hold that the assessee did not develop any infrastructural facility in the nature of road as defined in Explanation to sub-section (4) to 80 IA of Income Tax and therefore, the action of the A.O denying the deduction to assessee under 80 IA need no interference from our side. We uphold the same. See assessee own case 2010 (11) TMI 1129 - ITAT PUNE The issue arising in all the appeals is identical and accordingly we hold that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act in the captioned assessment years.Appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Assessment of total income against returned income.
2. Denial of deduction u/s 80IA(4) for infrastructure development.
3. Eligibility criteria for claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4).
4. Interpretation of development of infrastructure facility.
5. Applicability of previous ITAT orders on current case.
6. Pending appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals were against the order of CIT(A) assessing total income at Rs. 67,12,678 compared to the returned income of Rs. 14,66,483 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12 under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issue was consolidated for disposal.

2. The assessee raised grounds challenging the assessment and denial of deduction u/s 80IA(4) for infrastructure development, claiming fulfillment of eligibility conditions. The CIT(A) disallowed the deduction, stating that construction of road signages and foot over bridges did not qualify as infrastructure development under section 80IA(4).

3. The dispute revolved around whether the activities of constructing road signages and foot over bridges constituted development of infrastructure facility as per section 80IA(4). The assessee argued that the activities met the criteria for claiming the deduction, emphasizing the integral role of road signages in road development.

4. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions against the assessee regarding the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) for similar activities. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee's activities did not align with the definition of infrastructural facility as per the Explanation to Section 80IA(4).

5. The assessee's plea to keep the issue pending due to a pending appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was dismissed. The Tribunal relied on the principle that if an issue has been decided against the assessee in previous orders, there is no merit in delaying the decision based on pending appeals.

6. The Tribunal, considering the identical nature of the issue in all appeals, concluded that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA(4) for the assessment years in question. The appeals were dismissed, and the order was pronounced on April 6, 2017.