https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784724 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. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Mar 2026 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784724 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784724