Road widening qualifies for tax deduction under section 80-IA, but strengthening doesn't. Tribunal directs accurate revenue assessment.

The Tribunal held that the strengthening of the existing road did not qualify as developing new infrastructure under section 80-IA, thus disallowing the deduction for this portion of the project. However, the widening of the road from two to four lanes was deemed as developing new infrastructure and qualified for the deduction. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to obtain records from NHAI to determine the revenue attributable to different segments accurately. The principle of consistency was acknowledged but not applied due to the specific legal interpretation of section 80-IA.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of disallowance of claim made u/s 80-IA.
2. Eligibility of the BOT project for deduction under section 80-IA.
3. Distinction between developing, operating, and maintaining infrastructure for deduction eligibility.
4. Consistency in allowing deductions in previous and subsequent assessment years.
5. Estimation of the amount of deduction attributable to strengthening of the highway.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on account of disallowance of claim made u/s 80-IA:
The assessee claimed a deduction under section 80-IA for the development, operation, and maintenance of a highway project. The AO allowed only 50% of the claim, disallowing the rest on the grounds that the strengthening of the existing road did not qualify as a new infrastructure facility. The CIT(A) further reduced the disallowance to 25%, partially accepting the assessee's claim.

2. Eligibility of the BOT project for deduction under section 80-IA:
The project involved strengthening existing lanes and widening them from two to four lanes on NH-45. The assessee argued that this integrated project qualified for the deduction under section 80-IA. The assessee had been consistently allowed this deduction in previous years. The AO and CIT(A) partially disallowed the claim based on CBDT Circular No. 4/2010, which distinguishes between new infrastructure facilities and mere relaying of existing roads.

3. Distinction between developing, operating, and maintaining infrastructure for deduction eligibility:
The AO and CIT(A) distinguished between the activities of developing new infrastructure and maintaining existing infrastructure. The strengthening of existing lanes was considered maintenance rather than development of new infrastructure, thus not qualifying for the deduction. The assessee contended that the overall project, including widening and strengthening, should be considered as developing new infrastructure.

4. Consistency in allowing deductions in previous and subsequent assessment years:
The assessee highlighted that the deduction under section 80-IA had been consistently allowed in previous and subsequent assessment years. The principle of consistency was emphasized, arguing that the same treatment should be applied for the assessment years in question.

5. Estimation of the amount of deduction attributable to strengthening of the highway:
The AO and CIT(A) made ad-hoc estimations of the revenue attributable to the strengthening of the existing lanes, disallowing a portion of the deduction accordingly. The Tribunal found these estimations to lack a rational basis and directed the CIT(A) to obtain records from NHAI to accurately determine the revenue attributable to different segments of the project.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal held that the strengthening of the existing road did not qualify as developing new infrastructure under section 80-IA. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction for this portion of the project. However, for the widening of the road from two to four lanes, the Tribunal agreed that this constituted developing new infrastructure, thus qualifying for the deduction. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to obtain records from NHAI and accurately determine the revenue attributable to the qualifying and non-qualifying portions of the project.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the partial disallowance of the deduction related to the strengthening of existing lanes but allowed the deduction for the widening of the road. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for accurate determination of the revenue attributable to different segments of the project based on records from NHAI. The principle of consistency was acknowledged but not applied due to the specific legal interpretation of section 80-IA.

---