TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>ITAT affirms deduction under section 80IA for infrastructural projects, distinguishing developer from contractor</h1> The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, affirming the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA for ... Deduction u/s 80-IA - projects as infrastructural projects eligible for deduction - Held that:- As the projects being carried out during the year under consideration are the same as in A.Y. 2012-13, no reasons to deviate from the conclusions drawn by my colleague Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 that all these projects are infrastructural projects eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4). Thus hold that all the projects being carried out by assessee are infrastructural projects and not work contracts, and hence assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80lA on the profits from all the projects carried out during the year under reference. Hence direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80lA as claimed by the assessee. - decided against revenue Issues:Appeals against orders of CIT(A) for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15; Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA; Assessee claimed deduction for infrastructural projects; Disallowance by AO; CIT(A) allowed the claim based on earlier decisions; Revenue's appeal before ITAT.Analysis:The case involved revenue appeals against CIT(A) orders for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 regarding the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA for infrastructural projects. The Revenue raised various grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision. The primary issue was whether the projects undertaken by the assessee qualified as infrastructural projects for claiming the deduction. The AO disallowed the deduction, considering the assessee as a works contractor, not a developer, and that the projects were not awarded by the government directly. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, relying on earlier decisions and the nature of the projects.In the appeal before ITAT, the Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction, emphasizing the distinction between a developer and a contractor. The ITAT considered the arguments of both parties and examined the facts of the case. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had previously allowed deduction u/s 80IA(4) for similar projects in earlier AYs based on detailed discussions and relevant judicial decisions. The ITAT found that the projects in question were infrastructural projects eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4).The ITAT referred to the CIT(A)'s order in the earlier AY, where it was held that the projects were infrastructural and not mere work contracts. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the issue had been decided in favor of the assessee previously and there was no new contrary decision presented by the Revenue, there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, affirming the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80IA for the infrastructural projects.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
