Infrastructure project execution status-developer vs contractor-for s.80-IA(4) tax deduction; claim upheld, late appeal dismissed.

Deduction under s. 80-IA(4) turned on whether the assessee executed works as a mere contractor or developed eligible infrastructure facilities. The HC affirmed the ITAT's finding that, on the nature of obligations and role in executing the project, the assessee functioned as a developer and not as a contractor, and therefore qualified for s. 80-IA(4) relief; the disallowance was rightly deleted. Before the SC, the special leave petition was filed with an unexplained 358-day delay and the precedent relied upon had attained finality; consequently, the SLP was dismissed on delay as well as on merits.

---

---

The Special Leave Petition was dismissed due to "delay of 358 days" in filing, which "has not been explained satisfactorily." The Court also held that the petition lacked merit because the judgment relied upon for passing the impugned order "has not been appealed against and has attained finality." On these two grounds, the Court ruled: "the Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits." Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---