TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules assessee as 'developer' eligible for deductions under section 80IA for infrastructure facility investments</h1> <h3>En-vision Enviro Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT Circle-1 Surat</h3> The court determined that the assessee qualified as a 'developer' rather than a 'contractor' for claiming deductions under section 80IA, as it built and ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessee was a 'contractor' or a 'developer' for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA.2. Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA and the conditions for claiming such deduction.3. Validity of reopening assessment u/s 147/148.4. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A.Summary:Issue 1: Contractor vs. DeveloperThe primary issue was whether the assessee was a 'contractor' or a 'developer' for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA. The AO argued that the assessee was a contractor, citing the agreement terms and TDS certificates. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT held that the assessee acted as a 'developer' because it built and operated the infrastructure facility at its own cost, thus fulfilling the conditions laid down in Section 80IA(4). The ITAT referenced the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Radhe Developers, concluding that a contractor can also be a developer.Issue 2: Eligibility for Deduction u/s 80IAThe AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80IA, arguing that the assessee did not own the infrastructure facility. However, the CIT(A) and ITAT found that the assessee had made the entire investment and was shown as the owner in the balance sheets. The ITAT also noted that the TDS certificates were for waste treatment charges, not for construction, supporting the assessee's claim. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the deduction u/s 80IA.Issue 3: Validity of Reopening Assessment u/s 147/148The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 2004-05, arguing it was based on a change of opinion. The ITAT noted that the original assessment did not discuss the eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA, and the reasons for reopening were recorded within the prescribed time limit. The ITAT found that the reopening was justified as the income had escaped assessment due to the failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly. However, since the disallowance was not upheld, the Cross Objection was dismissed as redundant.Issue 4: Disallowance of Expenditure u/s 14AFor A.Y. 2007-08, the AO disallowed Rs. 2,84,215/- as expenditure related to exempt income u/s 14A. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The ITAT remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh determination, following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, which required a nexus to be established between investments and borrowings and a reasonable basis for determining the expenditure.Conclusion:1. Revenue's appeals for A.Ys. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 were dismissed.2. Assessee's appeals for A.Ys. 2005-06 & 2007-08 were allowed for statistical purposes.3. Assessee's Cross Objection for A.Y. 2004-05 was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
