TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -09 we are inclined to hold that section 80IA of the Act mainly speaks about development of infrastructure facility and whether widening of roads would also fall under the ambit of development of infrastructure facility has been further clarified by the CBDT by circular no. 4/2010 which is obviously biding on the revenue authorities. On logical analysis of the operative part of CIT(A) from para 4.1 to 4.3 of the impugned order. We note that the CIT(A) after properly considering circular no. 4/2010 of CBDT and relevant provision of section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. Rightly drawn a conclusion that the project of development and widening road under taken by the assessee qualifies the definition of new infrastructure facility for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 on the similar issue ordered dated 02/06/2015 in ITA No. 253/Mum./2012 and submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and the CIT(A) was right in grating relief for the assessee. 3. The ld. DR contended that the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The ld. DR further contended that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that fact that the scope of work undertaken by the assessee was both rehabilitation and strengthening of the existing two lane highway apart from widening thereof to four lanes. Therefore, deduction u/s 80IA of the Act would not be available on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that assessee is eligible to claim deduction of ₹ 1,85,80,756/- and this order was not reversed by the Revenue either by issuance of notice u/s 147 or by taking recourse to the powers vested under in the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act and thus the same attained finality. Though he submitted that in respect of A.Y. 200708 the matter is pending before the ITAT, Delhi Benches but at the same time submitted that the facts being not in dispute the issue can be decided in any year and it is not necessary to keep the matter in abeyance till the disposal of the earlier years order. He also relied upon the decision of the ITAT Pune in the case of Rohan Rajdeep Infrastructure (ITA No. 1214.PN/2010 dated 05.04.2013 wherein circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of roads would also fall under the ambit of development of infrastructure facility has been further clarified by the CBDT by circular no. 4/2010 which is obviously biding on the revenue authorities. Under above noted facts and circumstances on logical analysis of the operative part of CIT(A) from para 4.1 to 4.3 of the impugned order. We note that the CIT(A) after properly considering circular no. 4/2010 of CBDT and relevant provision of section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. Rightly drawn a conclusion that the project of development and widening road under taken by the assessee qualifies the definition of new infrastructure facility for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and the CIT(A) was correct and quite justified in de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
