Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal grants deduction to assessee in JV case, finding JV & consortium as paper entities.</h1> <h3>Transstory (India) Ltd. Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2 (2), Guntur</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the Joint Venture (JV) and consortium were formed solely for obtaining contracts, while the ... Deduction u/s 80IA - eligible assessee - joint venture and the consortium was formed only to obtain the contract from the Government body and they in fact did not execute the work awarded to it - work was executed by the party of the JV - held that:- - on an understanding of the concept of the 'Joint Venture' and the terms of agreement between the members of the present case, we are of the view that in the instant case, the consortium of Joint Venture has been formed only to procure the contract works - Held that: the benefit of exemption/deduction is to be allowed to any enterprise carrying on business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating, maintaining any infrastructure facility subject to fulfilment of certain conditions - in all practical purposes, the contract was awarded to the constituents of the joint venturers through joint venture and the work was executed by them - As per provisions of section 80IA(4), the benefit of deduction under this section is to be given only to the enterprise who carried on the classified business - Decided in favor of the assessee Issues Involved:1. Denial of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act.2. Identity of the entity entitled to the deduction.3. Execution of work by the joint venture (JV) and consortium.Detailed Analysis:Denial of Deduction under Section 80IA(4):The primary issue in this appeal is the denial of the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee claimed for the works executed for the Government of Karnataka and the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The assessee contended that the deduction should be allowed as they were engaged in the business of developing, maintaining, and operating infrastructure facilities, fulfilling the conditions laid down under Section 80IA(4).Identity of the Entity Entitled to the Deduction:The assessee formed a joint venture (JV) named 'Navayuga Transtoy (JV)' with another partner to bid for a contract awarded by the Irrigation Department of Andhra Pradesh. The JV was entitled to execute works worth Rs. 664.50 crores, with the assessee responsible for 40% of the work. Additionally, the assessee formed a consortium with M/s. Corporation Transtroy, OJSC, Moscow, for a contract awarded by KSHIP, a body of the Government of Karnataka, where the assessee was to execute 100% of the works.The JV and the consortium did not claim any deduction under Section 80IA(4) in their income tax returns. The assessee argued that the deduction should be allowed to the constituents (the assessee and the other partner) who actually executed the work, rather than the JV or consortium, which was merely a de jure contractor.Execution of Work by the Joint Venture (JV) and Consortium:The Tribunal noted that the JV and the consortium were formed solely to obtain contracts from government bodies. The work/project awarded to the JV was executed by its constituents as per mutually agreed terms. The JV raised consolidated bills on the government and shared the payments with its constituents. The Tribunal found that the JV and the consortium did not offer any profit or income earned from the project/works nor claimed any deduction under Section 80IA(4).The Tribunal referred to the case of ITO v. UAN Raju Constructions, where it was held that the JV cannot be considered the main contractor, and its members cannot be considered sub-contractors. The Tribunal emphasized that the JV was an artificial body created to bid for contracts, and the actual work was executed by its constituents.The Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., which supported the view that the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA(4) should be given to the enterprise that carried out the classified business.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the JV and the consortium were formed only to obtain contracts, and the actual work was executed by the assessee and its partners. The JV and the consortium did not claim any deduction under Section 80IA(4), indicating that they were merely paper entities. The Tribunal held that the assessee, being the entity that executed the work, was entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA(4). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction to the assessee.Result:The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found