https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752160 ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication regarding Section 80IA(4)(i) deduction eligibility. The assessee claimed developer status for infrastructure projects including roads, flyovers, and railway systems, while AO treated it as contractor work ineligible for deduction. CIT(A) had allowed the deduction. ITAT found insufficient evidence in paper books to determine whether assessee was developer or contractor, noting lack of tender documents, agreements, work details, financial statements, and deployment specifics. The tribunal emphasized need for detailed project-wise analysis on multiple parameters to establish developer versus contractor status. Revenue's appeal allowed for statistical purposes with matter restored to CIT(A) for comprehensive examination. en-us Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 May 2024 08:00:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752160 ITAT Ahmedabad remanded the case back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication regarding Section 80IA(4)(i) deduction eligibility. The assessee claimed developer status for infrastructure projects including roads, flyovers, and railway systems, while AO treated it as contractor work ineligible for deduction. CIT(A) had allowed the deduction. ITAT found insufficient evidence in paper books to determine whether assessee was developer or contractor, noting lack of tender documents, agreements, work details, financial statements, and deployment specifics. The tribunal emphasized need for detailed project-wise analysis on multiple parameters to establish developer versus contractor status. Revenue's appeal allowed for statistical purposes with matter restored to CIT(A) for comprehensive examination. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752160