9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 389 - AT - Income TaxNon-allowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act Held that - The assessee is a developer and not only a works contractor with respect to other projects - the assessee is converting the area entrusted to it into more useful and more profitable area and handing over the developed one to the Government/Government Bodies - the activity of the assessee is to develop an existing two lane road into four lane road thereby making the road more useful and profitable - The decision in M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad 2013 (8) TMI 831 - ITAT HYDERABAD followed - Assessee should not be denied deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as the contracts involves, development, operating, maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction and liability period, then such contracts cannot be called as simple works contract - Contracts needs to be segregated and on this deduction u/s. 80IA has to be granted and the other agreements which are pure works contracts hit by the explanation section 80IA(13), those work are not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act - The profit from such is to be computed by assessing officer on pro-rata basis of turnover thus, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA(4) the order of the CIT(A) upheld Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Granting of relief to the assessee under Section 80IA. 2. Nature of contracts entered by the assessee and their eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA. 3. Parameters of eligibility for contracts under Section 80IA. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Granting of Relief to the Assessee under Section 80IA The primary issue in these appeals is the non-allowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4) by the Assessing Officer (AO). The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by allowing the deduction under Section 80IA(4) based on previous decisions by the ITAT in the assessee's own case. The ITAT had previously determined that the assessee was a developer and not merely a works contractor, making it eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4). Issue 2: Nature of Contracts Entered by the Assessee and Their Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA The revenue contended that all contracts entered by the assessee were works contracts, thus making the deduction under Section 80IA inapplicable. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT found that the assessee incurred expenditure on its own for materials and labor and executed development work, qualifying it as a developer. The ITAT clarified that the term "developer" includes entities that develop, operate, and maintain infrastructure facilities, and such entities are eligible for deductions under Section 80IA(4). The ITAT emphasized that the nature of the work undertaken by the assessee, which involved significant responsibilities and risks, qualified it as a developer rather than a mere contractor. Issue 3: Parameters of Eligibility for Contracts under Section 80IA The CIT(A) and ITAT laid down specific parameters to determine the eligibility of contracts for deduction under Section 80IA. These parameters include the assessee's responsibility for development, financial involvement, maintenance, and defect correction. The ITAT directed that contracts containing these features should be eligible for deduction, while pure works contracts, as defined in the explanation to Section 80IA(13), should not. The AO was instructed to examine each contract based on these parameters and allow deductions accordingly. Conclusion: The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant deductions under Section 80IA(4) for contracts that met the specified parameters, dismissing the revenue's appeals. The ITAT emphasized the importance of examining the nature of each contract to determine eligibility for deductions, reaffirming the assessee's status as a developer and not merely a works contractor. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 02/04/2014.
|
