TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n all appeals read as under:- "1) On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. Authorities below were not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction of the appellant Company u/s 80-IA holding that the appellant was a contractor and also holding that all the three conditions embodied in S.80-IA(4)(i) were required to be simultaneously fulfilled when Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its subsequent judgment pronounced on 15.02.2010 in the case of ABC Heavy Engg. Ltd. (Supra) held that the amended provisions effective from 01.04.2002 the parliament did not intend that such conditions should be simultaneously fulfilled. It is also held that the third condition also was required to be harmoniously construed. Since the Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said section. Stating that this issue is decided in favour of the assessee Bombay High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Engg Ltd (supra), learned counsel took us though para-22 of the said judgment of the Bombay High Court for the proposition that the assessee, being contractor of the Government or Government Undertakings, are entitled the said deduction under section 80I(4)and also for the proposition that the debatable condition placed in sub-clause (c) i.e. "It has started or starts operating and maintaining the Infrastructure facility on or after 1st day of April, 1995" should be harmoniously interpreted with the main provision placed in clause (i) of section 80IA (4) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that he being a contractor-c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove cited para-22 of the said judgment and for the sake of completeness, the said paragraph is reproduced as under:- "22. The submission which was urged on behalf of the Revenue is that Clause (iii) of sub-section (4A) of section 80-IA, one of the conditions imposed was that the enterprise must start operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after 1st April, 1995. The same requirement is embodied in sub-clause (1) of sub-clause (4) of the amended provisions. It was urged that since the assesse was not operating and maintaining the facility, he did not fulfill the condition. The submission is fallacious both in fact and in law." That the assessee was maintaining the facility is not in dispute. The facility was commenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rastructure facility should be after 1st April, 1995. In the present case the assessee clearly fulfilled this condition". Before the amendment that was brought about by parliament by Finance Act, 2001 we have already noted that the consistent line of circulars of the Board postulated the same position. The amendment made by Parliament to S.80-IA (4) of the Act, set the matter beyond any controversy by stipulating that the three conditions for development, operation and maintenance were not intended to be cumulative in nature". 6. The above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is delivered in the case of ABG Heavy Engg Ltd (supra), who is a contractor for the JNP Trust and that contactor, assessee is found to be an eligible developer for ma....