TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a constituent member of a joint venture or consortium could claim deduction under section 80-IA(4) in respect of infrastructure projects awarded to the joint venture or consortium, where the agreements were executed in the name of the joint venture or consortium. (ii) Whether the projects executed by the assessee were hit by the exclusion for works contracts under section 80-IA(13).
Issue (i): Whether a constituent member of a joint venture or consortium could claim deduction under section 80-IA(4) in respect of infrastructure projects awarded to the joint venture or consortium, where the agreements were executed in the name of the joint venture or consortium.
Analysis: The joint ventures and consortiums were formed only to bid for and secure Government contracts, while the actual execution was carried out by the constituent members in their allotted shares. The agreements showed delineated responsibilities, separate execution roles, and bearing of technical, commercial, and financial risks by the members. The fact that the contract stood in the name of the joint venture did not prevent the constituent members from satisfying the requirement of entering into an agreement with the Government authority, because the arrangement operated as a pass-through mechanism for execution.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee; the constituent member was eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).
Issue (ii): Whether the projects executed by the assessee were hit by the exclusion for works contracts under section 80-IA(13).
Analysis: The nature of the projects involved detailed investigation, design, engineering, procurement, construction, commissioning, and post-completion operation and maintenance, along with substantial financial and execution risks. On the facts, the assessee was not a mere executor of predefined civil work but a developer bringing into existence infrastructure facilities through scientific planning and technical expertise. The statutory exclusion was held to apply only to pure works contracts and not to projects where the assessee undertook development functions and risk-bearing responsibilities.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee; the projects were not disqualified as works contracts.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the deduction under section 80-IA(4) as claimed in respect of the relevant infrastructure projects was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: For section 80-IA(4), a constituent member of a joint venture or consortium is entitled to deduction where it actually executes the infrastructure project and bears the attendant risks, and the statutory exclusion for works contracts applies only to pure works contracts, not to genuine development contracts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
