TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for appellant contended that return under Section 153 (A) is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under Section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different view. Therefore, in both way, deduction under Section 80IA , if otherwise admissible, could have been claimed by Assesses. Whether Assesses is not ''Developer' but ''Contractor'? - Held that:- Tribunal has confirmed findings of fact recorded by CIT (A) holding that Assesses is a ''Developer' and not a ''Contractor' and the otherwise findings recorded by A.O have been reversed by CIT (A). Since it is a finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn filed under Section 153A by observing that for the assessment year 2009-10 and onwards, the time for filing revised return has not expired and, therefore, claim for deduction under Section 80IA if not made earlier could have been made in the revised return. Once it could have been claimed in revised return under Section 139 (1), the same could have also been claimed under Section 153 (A). 5. Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for appellant contended that return under Section 153 (A) is not a revised return but it is a original return. If that be so, then in our view, deduction under Section 80IA, if otherwise admissible, always could have been claimed and we are not shown any authority otherwise to take a different view. Therefore, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has entered into an agreement with the government or other government bodies/corporation, the appellant company falls under this. After considering the CBDT Circular 4/2010 case laws of Koya and Company and Rohan and Rajdeep Infrastructure and as well as the facts at pages 40 to 42 of this order. The appellant company has widened the road from 2 lane to 4 lane in case of agreement with NHAI and that the same time constructed bridges, culverts, drainage, junctions, footpaths, traffic, signals etc which shows that assessee company is a developer and not a mere contractor. Similarly, agreement with UP PWD assessee had increased the road length and widened it, the works consisted of the up gradation of the existing road, includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a developer of road and has maintained separate books of accounts wherein all details have been recorded and nothing adverse was noted by the Assessing Officer relating to this. Therefore, after considering all the facts the appellant company fulfills all the criteria of a developers as per Section 80IA (4)(i) and by his works a new infrastructure facility in the nature of road has come into existence and is eligible for tax benefit under Section 80IA (4)(i) of the Act. After considering the above stated facts, the assesse is entitled for the deduction u/s 80IA (4), therefore, the addition of ₹ 10,34,06,532/- is hereby deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed. 8. The Tribunal has also looked into this question in pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor and not a developer. Therefore, on issue No.3, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT (A). This issue is decided in favour of the assessee. (Emphasis added) 9. Thus, Tribunal has confirmed findings of fact recorded by CIT (A) holding that Assesses is a ''Developer' and not a ''Contractor' and the otherwise findings recorded by A.O have been reversed by CIT (A). Since it is a finding of fact concurrently recorded by CIT (A) and Tribunal, which has not been shown perverse on contrary to record. We,therefore, do not find any infirmity therein and in our view, this issue can not be treated to give rise a substantial question of law. In the result, appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
