TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0IA (4) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Disallowance u/s 43B - Current Liabilities‟ shown towards advertisement tax payable to M.P. State Government as not paid till the date of audit - It is assessee‟s contention that the assessee has not claimed any deduction with respect to advertisement tax and has not debited any amount of expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account - HELD THAT:- We find that the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) (P) Ltd. [ 2007 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that when the assessee did not debit the amount to Profit and Loss Account as an expenditure nor had the assessee claimed any deduction in respect of the amount, the question of disallowing u/s 43B of the Act does not arise. Before us, the Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate as to why the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) (P) Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable to the present facts - no disallowance was warranted u/s 43B of the Act and we thus, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligible to claim the said deduction in respect of the profits derived from the activity of construction of road signages and foot over bridges over the roads carried on by the assessee for the year. 4] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the activity of construction of foot over bridges and construction of road signages amounted to development of roads and formed an integral and mandatory part of Road 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. 5] 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 standards prescribed by the Ministry of Surface Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining and operating of foot over bridges and road signages. He further noticed that the assessee had entered into an agreement with Indore Municipal Corporation for installation of signages and its maintenance. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the activity of installation and maintenance of signages cannot be considered to be an activity in the nature of infrastructure facilities as defined in section 80IA(4) of the Act. He further observed that the assessee‟s claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, for similar reasons was denied to the assessee by his predecessor for A.Y. 2011-12. He therefore, denied the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), who noticed that an identical issue arose in assessee‟s own case before the Tribunal for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12 and the Hon‟ble Tribunal vide order dated 14.10.2015 had upheld the order of Assessing Officer / CIT(A), wherein it had also relied on the decision in the case of M/s. Rajdeep Publicity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1782 1783/PN/2007 and 1414/PN/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstallation of road signages in assessment year 2010-11, as well. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax( Appeals). The First Appellate Authority granted relief to the assessee against which the Revenue was in appeal before Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the issue in favour of Revenue by following the order of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of assessee s sister concern titled, Rajdeep Publicity Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT/ACIT in ITA No. 1782 1783/PN/2007 and 1414/PN/2008 for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 decided on 04.06.2010. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal in assessee s case for assessment year 2010-11 are as under : 7. We find that the issue raised in the present appeal i.e. whether the erection of foot over bridges and installation of road signage fall within the definition of infrastructure facility as envisaged u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of assessee s group concern M/s. Rajdeep Publicity Pvt. Ltd. The relevant extract of the order of Tribunal in the said case is reproduced here-in-under: 2. In A.Y. 2003-04, the assessee has raised var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd road signals are necessary to develop infrastructural facility which is road, lack merit for simple reasons that road on which signals have been put was existing before signals were put. In this background, it was rightly observed that road signals could not be said to be an integral and in-separable part of the road. They can make the use of road more convenient but it cannot be said that without the signals, the road cannot be used. 4. As regards the submission of assessee that Section 80IA uses the word 'developing' as against Sec 80 IB(10) which uses the term the development and construction and therefore, for claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4), there may be development of infrastructure without its construction. It was rightly found misplaced to the facts in the case of the assessee. As per the provisions of Sub Section (1) to Section 80 IA, where gross total income of assessee include any profit and gain derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to Subsection (4), and deduction of an amount equal to 100% of profit and gain derived by the assessee shall be available for 10 consecutive years. According to the provision of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has not placed on record any material to show any distinguishing features in assessment year under appeal. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view. Following the order of Co-ordinate Bench, we hold that the assessee is not eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in respect of construction of foot-over bridges and installation of road signages as they do not fall within the ambit of infrastructure facility within the meaning of Section 80IA (4) of the Act. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10. Before us, no distinguishing facts in the facts of the present case and that of earlier year have been pointed out by the ld. AR nor has he placed any material on record to demonstrate that the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 (supra) has been set aside / overruled / stayed by Higher Judicial Forum. We therefore, following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case (supra) and for similar reasons hold that the assessee is not eligible for deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, the ground Nos.1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his aforesaid contention, he relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) (P) Ltd. decided on 10.09.2007. He also placed on record a copy of the aforesaid decision, which is placed at pages 164 and 165 of Paper Book. He therefore, submitted that if the assessee has not claimed the deduction on account of advertisement tax, provisions of section 43B of the Act are not applicable. 15. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders of Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present grounds is with respect to disallowance u/s 43B of the Act in respect of advertisement tax which remained unpaid. It is assessee‟s contention that the assessee has not claimed any deduction with respect to advertisement tax and has not debited any amount of expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account. The aforesaid contentions of the assessee have not been controverted by Revenue. We find that the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that when the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
