9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 1037 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) - HELD THAT - We find that the claim which has been decided in favour of the assessee 2022 (5) TMI 773 - ITAT AHMEDABAD is on identical projects. After careful consideration of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, we find that the assessee has been found to be a developer and not a work contractor and ultimately the benefit claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act has been granted. In the absence of any different fact, we do not find any reason to deviate from finding made by the Co-ordinate bench and therefore respectfully relying upon the same, we allow this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Set-off of losses of loss-making infrastructure facilities. 3. Exclusion of only net interest income for the purpose of allowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4). 4. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 5. Levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Deduction Claimed under Section 80IA(4): The first ground relates to the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee's claim was denied on the grounds that it was a work contractor and not a developer. However, the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.118/Ahd/2009 & 20 Others had already decided in favor of the assessee, identifying it as a developer and not merely a work contractor. The Bench observed that the terms and conditions of tender documents and the activities undertaken by the assessee demonstrated substantial involvement in developing infrastructure facilities, qualifying the assessee for deductions under Section 80IA(4). The primary condition for the deduction is that the enterprise must carry on the work of "developing" an infrastructure facility. The Bench concluded that the assessee met all criteria and was entitled to claim benefits under Section 80IA(4). Therefore, this ground of appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. 2. Set-off of Losses of Loss-making Infrastructure Facilities: Ground No. 2 concerns the set-off of losses from loss-making infrastructure facilities. The Co-ordinate Bench had previously decided that the deduction should be calculated on a standalone unit basis without considering or setting off losses from other units. The Bench referenced the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of PCIT vs. Nirma Ltd., which supported the view that deductions under Section 80IA should be computed unit-wise. The Bench directed the AO to grant relief on profit-making units without setting off losses from other eligible units. Thus, this ground of appeal was allowed. 3. Exclusion of Only Net Interest Income for the Purpose of Allowance of Deduction under Section 80IA(4): Ground No. 3 addresses the exclusion of net interest income for deduction purposes. The Co-ordinate Bench had previously examined and decided this issue, concluding that interest income earned on fixed deposits for obtaining bank guarantees and security deposits, which were preconditions for awarding project work by government authorities, had a direct nexus with the business activities. The Bench cited various judicial authorities that held such interest income as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. Consequently, this ground of appeal was allowed. 4. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii): Ground No. 4 pertains to the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). The Co-ordinate Bench had previously addressed this issue, noting that the Revenue had not established any nexus between interest-bearing funds and interest-free advances made by the assessee. The Bench referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., which held that if interest-free funds were sufficient to meet investments, it could be presumed that investments were made from interest-free funds. Therefore, the Bench deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure, allowing this ground of appeal. 5. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C: Ground Nos. 5 and 6 were deemed consequential, requiring no separate order. Thus, these grounds of appeal were dismissed as consequential. Conclusion: In the result, the assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the primary grounds being decided in favor of the assessee based on the Co-ordinate Bench's previous findings and relevant judicial precedents. This order was pronounced on 10/10/2022.
|
