9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed income was determined at Rs. 67.07 Crs against the return income of Rs. 24.50 Crs. Among various additions, denial of deduction u/s 80IA is one conclusion, which is the subject matter of dispute before us. Assessee formed a joint venture named Supreme MBL JV along with MBL infrastructure limited. The joint venture agreement dated 26.8.2006. The joint venture was entered into for the purpose of preparing and submitting the tender for the work of "Western Transport Corridor Tumkur - Haveri NH-4 Project Package-3, Rehabillitation & Upgrading of Chitradurga Section of NH-4 (Km 189 - Km 207). An agreement entered with NHAI in this regard after obtaining the contract by the joint venture (JV). As per the agreement of the JV, the partners show participating share in the contract as given in Article-4 of the JV agreement (page 1 of the paper book) is the pre-determined. assessee's share is 60% (Supreme Infrastructure (India) Ltd) and 40% is to be executed by MBL Infrastructure Ltd, other constituents of the JV, who is not assessed to tax in Bombay. AO denied the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB (4) on the reasoning that the signatory with the NHAI is the joint venture company and not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taxable entity which entered into agreement with the NHAI is alone entitled for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the IT Act. I fully agree with the views of the AO. In view of this, AO's order is upheld." 4. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR heavily relied on the order of the AO on the issue of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. 5. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed copies of the decisions cited and the same read as under: 1. Transstory (India) Ltd vs. ITO 134 ITD 269 2. ACIT vs. JSR Construction (P) Ltd 898/Bang/2009 3. ITO vs. UAN Raju Construction 48 SOT 178 4. Laxmi Civil Engg. P. Ltd vs. Addl CIT ITA Nos. 766/M/09; 254/PN/08; 431/PN/07 & 435/PN/07. 6. Ld Counsel for the assessee also brought to our notice the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum Constructions (P) Ltd vs. ACIT vide ITA No.1408/PN/2003 , wherein the assessee is held eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of the profits relatable to the share allotted to the other joint venture partner (M/s. Swapnali Constructions). The said partner tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads as under: "30. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the CIT (A) has wrongly withdrawn the claim of the assessee under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) ad restore that of the AO and grant deduction u/s 80IA(4) as claimed by the assessee. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed." 9. From the above, it is evident that the deduction u/s 80IB(4) is available either to the JV, who is the actual signatory to the agreement or to the constituents of the JV without having separate agreement and thus, the final executor of the contract is relevant for availing benefit u/s 80IB(4) of the Act. The implied principle in matters of granting deduction under these provisions revolves around the concept i.e., "substance" is more important than the "form" and thus, failure to draw a separate agreement with NHAI does not disqualify the assessee from claiming the deduction. This view is supported by the decisions cited above. This is an undisputed fact that the SIIL executed the contract on behalf of M/s. Supreme - MBL JV. As such, the NHAI does not have objections against the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of the assessee, SIAL. 13. During the proceedings before us, Ld DR confirming that the identity of the achiever, the sources for the deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee and other conditions of provisions of section 68 are explained. 14. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the contents of para 11 to 13 of the impugned order. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities in general and para 11 to 13 of the CIT (A)'s order in particular. On perusal of the said paras 11 to 13 of the CIT (A)'s order, we find para 12 and 13 are relevant here which read as under: "12. The appellant submitted that from the above Ledger extract it is clear that on 06/06/2008 appellant had given advance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- against which he had been repaid Rs. 57,80,000/- and balance adjusted against purchases. The appellant stated that similarly against advance payment on 26/9/08 of Rs. 95,00,000/- & on 16/10/2008 of Rs 70,00,000/- it had received back Rs. 70,00,000 on 31/10/2008 &. 1,00,00,000/- on 15/12/2008. Therefore, the appellant submitted that at no point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
