9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing ground: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing deduction u/s.80IA of the I.T.Act, 1961m relying upon order of the ITAT Mumbai, in the case of M/s. Patel Engg Ltd. (2004) 84 TTJ(Mum) 646, inasmuch as the department has not accepted the referred order of the ITAT and preferred an appeal to High Court, Mumbai, against the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor in the execution of water supply project. Therefore, assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s.80IA because the same was available only to the persons engaged in the development of infrastructure sector and accordingly, deduction u/s.80IA was denied. 5. Learned CIT(A) following the earlier years order and following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of B.T. Patil Sons Belgaum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness of infrastructure project claimed to have been carried on by assessee during relevant years Assessing Officer did not allow deduction as in his opinion assessee had not fulfilled conditions stipulated in sub-section(4) of section 80-IA inasmuch as infrastructure was not owned by assessee-company; there was no agreement between assessee-company and Central Government or a State Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held order Assessing Officer denying benefit of deduction to assessee under section 80-IA(4) On second appeal, Judicial Member allowed assessee s claim whereas Accountant Member confirmed order passed by revenue authorities In view of difference of opinion, matter was referred to a Larger Bench - It was noticed from records that sphere of work assigned to assessee was simply to do job of civil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
