Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1238 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTDeduction u/s 80IA - Assessee is termed as contractor he had developed, operated and maintained infrastructural facility - HELD THAT:- These appeals are admitted for consideration on following reframed substantial questions of law : (a) Whether, the respondent / assessee fulfills the requirement stipulated in Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 once the conclusion reached is that it is contractor and not developer as stated in the subsection? (b) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that even if the Assessee is termed as contractor he had developed, operated and maintained infrastructural facility and hence entitled to the deductions within the meaning of subsection? Depreciation @80% on civil construction, electrical and other nonintegral installations - Revenue argues that the expenditure in such activities cannot be seen as a part of installation of windmill and, therefore, the depreciation prescribed for the same would not be available to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Similar question had come up for consideration in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, PUNE VERSUS COOPER FOUNDARY PVT. LTD. [2011 (6) TMI 837 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that windmill was erected in the desert area of Rajasthan which required special foundation of reinforced cement concrete and that the said reinforced cement concrete formed integral part of the windmill. Case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Herdilla Chemicals Ltd. [1983 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed in allowing the claim of the assessee. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that RCC foundation forms integral part of the windmill is a finding of fact and no question of law arises from the same
|