TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II, Nashik relating to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in a variety of activities such as undertaking of contract work relating to infrastructure projects like water supply and lift irrigation project, road constructions contract on BOT basis, manufacturing of PSC pipes, trading in MS plates and pipes etc. The assessee filed the return of income on 30-09-2009 declaring total income of Nil after claiming deduction of ₹ 15,33,36,705/- u/s.80IA(4) of the I.T. Act which was revised to ₹ 10,92,36,658/- during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) amounting to ₹ 15,33,36,705/- which was revised to ₹ 10,92,36,658/- on the ground that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. While doing so, the AO followed the order of his predecessor for A.Y. 2007-08 wherein similar disallowance was made for the following reasons : i. The assessee company is only a contractor and not a developer of any infrastructure project. ii) There is no clause in tender document/agreement by which the ownership of the land or any property is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t taken into account. 5. The appellant craves leave to amend, add, alter the above grounds, if felt necessary, later. 5. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Yrs. 2007-08 and 2008-09 where the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) which was denied by the AO was allowed by the CIT(A) and on further appeal the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue by observing as under : 3.3 After going through the rival submissions and material on record, we find that the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) who has held that the assessee was developer and entitled to claim deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The assessee before CIT(A) had relied on above mentioned orders/Judgments and contended that the assessee company had correctly claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 3.4 The Assessing Officer stated that the appellant, who has in fact developed the infrastructure facility, is a contractor and hence not eligible for deduction u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer has not justified to hold that the work has been executed by JMC as developer and the appellant is a mere contractor. 3.7 As regards preparation of design and drawing of the project it is evident form the following documents/papers that the appellant has in fact prepared the same. Annex-4, appearing on page no. 177 of the tender of Mokhabardi Lift Irrigation Scheme, relevant portion of which reads as under : PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN AND DRAWING 1.0 SCOPE OF PROPOSED IRRIGA TION SCHEME As stated in Annex A of Section-1. 2.0 DESIGN AND DRA WING. 2.1 The contractor/consultant shall carry out layout studies including cost economics by examining, all possible alternative to prepare detailed layout, design and drawings of all components of the work stated in Annex A. The contractor/consultant shall use guide lines in the relevant ISI codes/CDO codes prepared by ISI/CDO for various components of the project in the lift irrigation scheme. 2) CPWD manual relevant papers at page Nos. 74 75. 3) Letter dated 24-08-2006 filed with Supdt. Engineer(PHs), Central Designs Organisations, Nashik. 4) Letter dated 07-10-2006 issued by Chief Engineer, Nagpur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td (supra) and Pratibha Constructions and Engineers (supra) on facts vis-a-vis facts of the appellant's case. CIT(A) observed that the status of the appellant was similar to that of Laxmi Civil Engg. (P) Ltd and Mahalaxmi Corporation i.e. the nature of work was also more or less similar. The similarities in the tender documents pertaining to the projects undertaken by these persons suggest that the terms and conditions were by and large identical. Further, tender document for Goshikhurd Project awarded to Om Metal Infra by VIDC proves that it was for irrigation work and the terms and conditions were akin to that of Mokabardi Irrigation Project awarded to the appellant i.e. Tap/ Prestess Products Ltd., by VIDC. CIT(A) in his concluding para has rightly held that keeping in view the principles of judicial precedent, Judicial discipline and also in order to maintain the rule of consistency and uniformity in respect of identical facts, he was of the considered view that the above discussed decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune, Jaipur Benches and ABH Heavy Industries (supra) in regard to claim of deductions u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act are squarely applicable to the appellant's ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
