9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies Accounting Standard Rules, 2006. Percentage of completion is determined on the basis of surveys performed. From the above, the profit generated by each project can be determined by applying the percentage of completion method under projects eligible for deduction u/s 80IA or non eligible projects. In our considered view, this cannot be the reason to deny the benefit to the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act. On analyzing the assessment order, AO had inferred from subsection (5) of section 80IA of the Act, stated that to claim deduction u/s 80IA, the profit of eligible business should be computed as if such eligible business was only source of the income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the AY. Thus, according to AO, the assessee is bound to maintain separate accounts for the works. Since the assessee is dealing in the numerous projects at the same time and also the projects are not time bound, it is impractical to present books of account on project wise and year wise. The method adopted by the assessee is based on the accounting standard approved by the ICAI. These standards are tested and proven method. Considering the above findings, we observe that assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have allowed the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act as the assessee has not sat isf ied the condit ions of being a developer i.e, development, operat ing, maintenance, financial involvement, defect correct ion and liability per iod in the contract agreement? 4. The learned CIT (A) ought not have allowed the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act worked out on pro rata basis of turnover , though the assessee had not maintained separate books of accounts, more so specif ically in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ar isudhana Spinning Mills Ltd Vs CIT, Ludhiana (dated 05/09/12 5. Ld. DR relied on the order of AO. 6. Ld. AR submitted that the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for earlier AYs. 7. We have considered the arguments of both the parties and perused the material facts on record as well as the orders of revenue authorities. The first ground of revenue is general in nature The second and third grounds are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal wherein the coordinate bench a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure facility includes Rail system, Highway project, Water treatment system, Irrigation project, a Port, an Airport or an Inland port which cannot be owned by any one. Even otherwise, the word it is used to denote an enterprise. Therefore, there is no requirement that the assessee should have been the owner of the infrastructure facility. 33. The next question is to be answered is whether the assessee is a developer or mere works contractor. The Revenue relied on the amendments brought in by the Finance Act 2007 and 2009 to mention that the activity undertaken by the assessee is akin to works contract and he is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA (4) of the Act. Whether the assessee is a developer or works contractor is purely depends on the nature of the work undertaken by the assessee. Each of the work undertaken has to be analyzed and a conclusion has to be drawn about the nature of the work undertaken by the assessee. The agreement entered into with the Government or the Government body may be a mere works contract or for development of infrastructure. It is to be seen from the agreements entered into by the assessee with the Government. We find that the Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-2010, such activity is eligible for deduction under section 80IA (4) of the Act. This cannot be considered as a mere works contract but has to be considered as a development of infrastructure facility. Therefore, the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor as presumed by the Revenue. The circular issued by the Board, relied on by learned counsel for the assessee, clearly indicate that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA (4) of the Act. The department is not correct in holding that the assessee is a mere contractor of the work and not a developer. 34. We also find that as per the provisions of the section 80IA of the Act, a person being a company has to enter into an agreement with the Government or Government undertakings. Such an agreement is a contract and for the purpose of the agreement a person may be called as a contractor as he entered into a contract. But the word contractor is used to denote a person entering into an agreement for undertaking the development of infrastructure facility. Every agreement entered into is a contract. The word contractor is used to denote the person who enters into such contract. Even a person who ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t categorically states that the deduction under section 80IA of the Act is available to developers who undertakes entrepreneurial and investment risk and not for the contractors, who undertakes only business risk. Without any doubt, the learned counsel for the assessee clearly demonstrated before us that the assessee at present has undertaken huge risks in terms of deployment of technical personnel, plant and machinery, technical knowhow, expertise and financial resources. Further, the order of Tribunal in the case of B.T.Patil cited supra is prior to amendment to sec 80IA(4), after the amendment the section 80IA(4) read as (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility, prior to amendment the or between three activities was not there, after the amendment or has been inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2002 by Finance Act 2001. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessee should not be denied the deduction under section 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 work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, we make it clear that where the assessee has carried out the development of infrastructure work in Consortium and not as a subcontractor, then also the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The same is applicable in case of work allotted by Government Corporation/Government Bodies. 38. Further in the case of R.R. Constructions, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 3.10.2011 in I.T.A. No. 2061/Mds/2010 for assessment year 2007-08 held as follows: 3. We have heard rival submissions and have carefully perused the entire record. The first issue of the appeal is regarding claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The case of the revenue is that the assessee is a 'works contractor' and not a 'developer' as stipulated under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The section 80IA(4) applies to any enterprise, which carries on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facilities, which fulfil all the above conditions. There cannot be any question of providing a condition for such an enterprise to start operating and maintaining the infrastru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the infrastructure facilities and satisfy all the conditions of section 80IA(4)(i)(a). It is undeniable fact that the assessee has taken development of infrastructure facility agreement from the State Government/local authority. A contractor who develops the infrastructure facility becomes a developer to claim exemption under section 80IA(4). The Hon'ble Bombay Bench of ITAT while deciding the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.1221/Mum/2004 has gone to the extent of holding that the assessee, a civil contractor, having executed a part of contracts of irrigation and water supply on 'build and transfer' basis and handed over them to contractee Governments, was eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4). 5. We have also taken a similar view in ITA No. 554/Meds/2010 in the case of East Coast Constructions Industries Ltd v. DCIT vide order dated 13.09.2011 and relevant paras from 9 to 14 are reproduced hereunder: 9. After considering the rival submissions, we can safely say that the benefit of section 80IA is available only to a 'developer' who carries on business of 'developing of infrastructure facility'. A person who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o makes infrastructure and himself executes development work and carries out civil work will be eligible for tax benefit u/s 80IA of the Act. In contrast to this, a person who enters into a contract with another person for executing works contract, will not be eligible for tax benefit u/s 80IA. It was clarified by the Circular No. 3 of 2008 dated 12.3.2008 that the provisions of section 80IA shall not apply to a person who executes only work contracts and only those who make the development work will be eligible for tax benefit u/s 80IA of the Act. Be that as it may, when we apply this provision in its letters and spirit, we find that this assessee is verily eligible for deduction u/s 80IA, as the assessee-company fulfils all the relevant conditions. The facts of this case go to prove that the assessee is a 'developer' of infrastructure facilities. The reasons for our above conclusion are given in the following paras. Firstly, the assessee-company not only designs but also creates new products. The assessee had undertaken four projects during the relevant year and executed, constructed, delivered and maintained by it. As per the definition of Advanced Law Lexicon [placed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (viz., expressways, highways, airports, ports and rapid urban rail transport systems) which was lacking in our country. The purpose of the tax benefit has all along been for encouraging private sector participation by way of investment in development of the infrastructure sector and not for the persons who merely execute the civil construction work or any other works contract. Accordingly, it is proposed to clarify that the provisions of section 80-IA shall not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise referred to in the said section. Thus, in a case where a person makes the investment and himself executes the development work, i.e., carries out the civil construction work, he will be eligible for tax benefit under section 80- lA. In contrast to this, a person who enters into a contract with another person (i.e., undertaking or enterprise referred to in section 80-IA) for executing works contract, will not be eligible for tax benefit under section 80- IA. This amendment will take retrospective effect from April I, 2000 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2000-01 and subsequent years. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d maintaining the facility, he did not fulfil the condition. The submission is fallacious both in fact and in law. That the assessee was maintaining the facility is not in dispute. The facility was commenced after 1st April, 1995. Therefore, the requirement was met in fact. Moreover, as a matter of law, what the condition essentially means is that the infrastructure facility should have been operational after 1st April, 1995. After Section 80IA was amended by the Finance Act, 2001, the section applies to an enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing; or (ii) operating and maintaining; or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility' which fulfils certain conditions. Those conditions are (I) ownership of the enterprises by a company registered in India or by a consortiums; (II) an agreement with the central or State Government, local authority or statutory body; and (III) the Start of operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995. The requirement that operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility should commence after 1st April, 1995 has to be harmoniously construed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case and eventually is entitled for the deduction under section 80IA (4) of the Act. Accordingly, the modified ground, which is common in all the four appeals is allowed in favour of the assessee. 12. Let us remind ourselves that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd vs CIT, 196 ITR 188, has ordained that taxing statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be liberally construed. 13. Now, the question arises as to whether the term 'contractor' is not essentially contradictory to the term 'developer'. In fact, in every development the term 'developer' will definitely be a 'works contractor' but every works contractor may not be a 'developer'. A 'developer' is a specific kind of works contractor to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) who fulfils all the conditions namely, if the assessee develops the infrastructure facility if it operates the infrastructure facility and if it maintains the infrastructure facility or to put it in simpler terms, the harmonious reading of the provisions in its entirety would lead to the conclusion that this deduction is available to an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and has borne the cost itself. The company has constructed, delivered and maintained and security is also maintained thereafter. So, this is a case of transfer of property in chattel and not a contract of service. A 'developer' as per the Advanced Law Lexicon means a person engaged in development or operation or maintenance of Special Economic Zone, and also includes any person authorized for such purpose by any such developer . In the case of ACIT vs Bharat Udyog Ltd, 'F' Bench of ITAT Mumbai, has concluded that any assessee who is engaged in developing the infrastructure facility and also operating and maintaining the same, is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4). A copy of this decision is enclosed at page 139 of the paper book. In the case of Patel Engineering Ltd vs Dy. CIT, 84 TTJ (Mumbai) 646 [copy enclosed at page No. 145 of the paper book], it has been held that a person, who enters into a contract with another person will be treated as a 'contractor' undoubtedly; and that assessee having entered into an agreement with the Government of Maharashtra and also with APSEB for development of the infrastructure projects, is obviousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The same has been the position in the given case as well. So, deduction u/s 80IA(4) is also available to this assessee which has undertaken work of a mere 'developer'. Rather, the statutory provision as contained in section 80IA which provides for deduction of infrastructure facility no way provides that entire infrastructure facility project has to be developed by one enterprise. Thus, as per section 80IA the assessee should develop the infrastructure facility as per the agreement with the Central/State Government/Local Authority. Entering into a lawful agreement and thereby becoming should, in no way be a bar to the one being a 'developer'. In this regard, as we have already stated, the decision of ACIT vs Bharat Udyog Ltd, 118 ITD 336 and Patel Engineering Ltd vs Dy. CIT, 84 TTJ 646, are relevant. As per Circular No. 4/2010[F.No. 178/14/2010-ITA-I] dated 18.5.2010, widening of existing roads constitutes creation of new infrastructure facility for the purpose of section 80IA(4)(i) . The assessee is not required to develop the entire road in order to qualify for deduction u/s 80IA as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs ABG He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to claiming of deduction u/s. 80IA.of the Act in all these appeals. On careful consideration of the rival submissions in the light of the material on record, we find that the assessee should succeed on this ground. A careful reading of the order of this Tribunal dated 16.3.2012, relevant portion of which has been extracted above, clearly indicates that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. That being so, the Assessing Officer is not entitled, in the consequential proceedings, the scope of which is confined to giving effect to the order of the Tribunal, to sit in judgment over the view taken by the Tribunal on the issue in dispute, and if at all there is any grievance on account of the finding given by the Tribunal on the point at dispute, it should pursue the other appellate legal remedies provided in the statute itself, but cannot dilute the direction of the Tribunal. Accordingly, respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal dated 16.3.2012, we are inclined to hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction under S.80IA of the Act. We hold accordingly and allow the ground of the assessee on this issue. Following the above findings of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
