9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Pvt. Ltd [ 2010 (4) TMI 1074 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] which was also a similar matter wherein an advertising company engaged in infrastructure development has erected automatic traffic signal and pedestrian foot over bridge and the question was whether this would constitute infrastructure development as contemplated in clause [a] of the Explanation to subsection [4] of section 80IA of the Act. The Division Bench by the said judgement had upheld the decision rendered by the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue s appeal. This decision has attained finality. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal in so far as the claim of deduction made by the assessee under section 80IA of the Act requires to be sustained. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/41/2017 IA NO:GA/2/2017 [OLD NO:GA/358/2017] IN ITAT/41/2017 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2021 - THE HON BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Mr. Sunity Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. M. Bandyopadhyay, Adv. for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwalla, Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. for respondent. ORDER Re: IA NO:GA/1/2017 [OLD NO:GA/357/2017] The Court : This application has been filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay of 470 days in filing the appeal. The explanation offered by the Revenue is far from being satisfactory. Nevertheless being conscious of the fact that we have to decide an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arding will fall within the ambit of expression derived from infrastructure facility as defined in section 80IA of the Income Tax Act in particular the Explanation appended to sub-section [4] of section 80IA ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in not accepting the principle laid down in the case of CIT-III Bangalore vs. Skyline Advertising Pvt. Ltd. reported in 45 Taxmann 532[2014] Karnataka though the issue is squarely covered by the said judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka ? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal erred in deciding the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in favour of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue that the appeal in respect of the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 are below the threshold tax limit as stipulated by the CBDT in its circular. If that is so, the Revenue cannot pursue the appeal in respect of the said assessment years and, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed, in so far as the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. For the assessment year 2009-10 we have considered the submission on either side and we find that two fact finding Authorities, namely, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] and the Tribunal considered the fact and have returned the finding on merits. The Revenue s contention is that the assessee is only an advertising firm putting banner for their own purpose and, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year 2005-06, the decision was rendered in favour of the assessee and though the Revenue has filed appeal before this Court in ITA 334 of 2009 but this was not one of the substantial questions of law, which has been admitted for consideration. Thus it goes without saying that the decision in respect of the substantial question of law no.5 has been accepted by the Revenue. Accordingly, the said question is also decided against the Revenue. So far as the substantial question no.6 is concerned, the question is covered by the decision of the assessee s own case in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-IV vs. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ITA 55 of 2018 with ITA 183 of 2018 dated 31.7.2019 following the same substantial ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
