2019 (4) TMI 861 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA (4) - Assessee-Contractor involved in the Development of Infrastructure Facility of Sewerage Plants - deduction available to the Contractor, who is transferred with such Infrastructure Facility - HELD THAT - Since the Assessee admittedly entered into contract with Local Bodies or Municipal Bodies for undertaking the contract works for developing the infrastructure-sewage system, he is directly entitled to get the benefit of such deductions under Section 80IA (4). The said Section, in fact, even extends the benefit to the Contractor, who is transferred with such Infrastructure Facility for operating and maintaining the same as per the Proviso to Section 80IA (4). Relying on decision in CIT VERSUS M/S. CHETTINAD LIGNITE TRANSPORT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED 2019 (4) TMI 683 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it was held that Tribunalhas rightly applied the Proviso to Section 80IA(4) and held that since the Assessee was recognised as contractor for these railway sidings, which undoubtedly fell under the definition of infrastructure facility , it was entitled to the said benefit u/s 80IA - no Substantial Question of Law arises Allowability of fluctuations in Foreign Currency as revenue expenses u/s 37 - capital vs revenue - HELD THAT - in our opinion, the authorities below have rightly found that the same did not pertain to any capital asset and such loss had occurred to the Assessee in the ordinary course of business, and, therefore, allowed it towards business expenditure u/s 37(1) - no Substantial Question of Law arises

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Classification of the Assessee as a "Developer" versus a "Contractor."
3. Allowance of Foreign Exchange Loss as a business expenditure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue questioned whether the Assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision in favor of the Assessee, confirming that the Assessee was involved in the development of infrastructure facilities, specifically sewerage plants, under contracts with municipal and local authorities. The Tribunal found that the Assessee's activities included comprehensive project execution from design to commissioning and subsequent operation and maintenance, thus qualifying for the deduction under Section 80IA(4).

2. Classification of the Assessee as a "Developer" versus a "Contractor":
The Revenue contended that the Assessee was merely a contractor and not a developer, which would disqualify it from the deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal, however, determined that the Assessee undertook significant financial investments and was responsible for the entire development process of the infrastructure projects. The Tribunal referenced various case laws, including decisions from the Bombay High Court and other Tribunal benches, to substantiate that the Assessee's role and financial commitments qualified it as a developer. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had demonstrated substantial investments and financial guarantees, which supported its classification as a developer.

3. Allowance of Foreign Exchange Loss as a Business Expenditure:
The Revenue challenged the Assessee's claim of foreign exchange loss, arguing that the Assessee failed to provide sufficient proof before the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, however, upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to allow the foreign exchange loss as a business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal cited the decision in Sutlej Cotton Mills, which established that foreign exchange losses related to revenue account transactions should be treated as trading losses. The Tribunal found that the Assessee's foreign exchange loss arose in the ordinary course of business and was correctly accounted for as a business expenditure.

Conclusion:
The High Court, upon reviewing the Tribunal's findings and the legal provisions, concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the Revenue's appeals. The Court affirmed that the Assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA(4) as a developer of infrastructure facilities and that the foreign exchange loss was correctly allowed as a business expenditure. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, with no costs awarded.