9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we hold that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act in the captioned assessment years.Appeals of the assessee are dismissed. - ITA Nos.373 to 377/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2017 - MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM Appellant by : Shri Nitin Kataria Respondent by : Shri Sandeep Garg, CIT ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: The above appeals filed by the same assessee are against the consolidated order of CIT(A)-12, Pune, dated 30.01.2015 relating to assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. This bunch of 5 appeals relating to different assessment years of the assessee we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dges and construction of road signages amounted to development of roads and thus, the said activity was in the nature of development of infrastructure facility as stipulated u/s.80IA(4) and therefore, the deduction u/s 80IA(4) was allowable to the assessee. 4] The learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that a. The road signages constructed by the assessee included various directions boards, cautionary signs, informatory signs etc. and the said signages constructed over the roads were a part and parcel of the roads and hence, the construction of the same amounted to development of roads and thus, the deduction u/s 80IA(4) was allowable to the assessee. b. The road signages form a mandatory part of roads as per the standa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h has been admitted and the issue is pending before the Hon ble High Court. 5. The representative appearing on behalf of the assessee stressed that since the appeal was pending before the Hon ble High Court the present appeals also be kept pending. 6. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand stressed that where the issue has already been decided against the assessee and there is no change in the facts, there is no merit in the plea of the assessee. 7. Briefly in the facts of the case a search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted in the Rohan Group of cases on 27-10-2010. The assessee in response to notice issued under section 153A of the Act filed return of income. The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue certificate that the said structures form a part of the Port and that such structures are built on BOT or BOLT Scheme and there is an agreement that the same should be transferred to the said authority on the expiry of the time stipulated in the agreement. The C.B.D.T being the competent authority for the purpose of delegation of legislation as law making power of C.B.D.T is understood, the ambit of circular should not be enlarged to include the activity into which the assessee is engaged. There cannot be any implied enlargement of sub-section. The stand of the assessee that structures of foot over bridge and road signals are necessary to develop infrastructural facility which is road, lack merit for simple reasons that road on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the income of the assessee is on account of putting road signals. It does not fit into development of infrastructural facilities as defined in Explanation to Section 80 IA(4). So, there cannot be any development of any road without its construction. Adding additional facility cannot be said that an infrastructural facility in the nature of road as defined in Explanation to Section 80IA(4). 5. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee did not develop any infrastructural facility in the nature of road as defined in Explanation to sub-section (4) to 80 IA of Income Tax and therefore, the action of the A.O denying the deduction to assessee under 80 IA need no interference from our side. We uphold the same. Similar issue arose in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
