TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erent contractors have been awarded specific works with regard to execution of this project by the Corporation in a joint venture. 3.1. The AO observed that by Finance Act, 2007 an explanation was added with retrospective effect making it clear that the provisions of section 80IA(4) will not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into the undertaking or the enterprise, as the case may be. Further, by Finance Act, 2009 an explanation was added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000 and, therefore, the same was applicable during the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2007-08. It was made clear that nothing contained in section 80IA(4) shall apply which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Govt.) and executed by the undertaking or enterprise. As the assessee was awarded a works contract by the State Govt. of Maharashtra which is part of total works of construction, development and operation of irrigation project, the claim of assessee was just not found tenable and accordingly claim of deduction of Rs. 16,89,16,692/- under section 80IA(4) was rejected. 3.2. It was contended before ld. CIT (A) that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim deduction under section 80IA(4). In Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07 in first appeal the appeals were decided in favour of the assessee and which was held up in second appeal also. With this, it was submitted that deduction may be allowed. 4. After taking into consideration the provisions of law amended by Finance Act, 2007 and 2009 and taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT (A) found that AO was correct in denying the deduction under section 80IA(4). Accordingly, he upheld the order of AO. While upholding, the following finding have been given by ld. CIT (A) :- " In earlier years the issue was decided in favour of the appellant at both the appellate4 stages. However, Finance Act, 2009 has made change in the law. By Finance Act, 2009 an explanation was added t the end of section 80IA and it was clarified that with reference to sub section 4 in respect of works contract awarded by Central or State Govt. and executed by the undertaking the provisions of sub section 4 will not be applicable. The explanation was added retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and, therefore, where ever there is works contract awarded by Central or State Govt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Maharashtra Government but it is to be seen what duty has to be performed by the assessee by that contract. It was explained that the assessee has to develop the design of Gates and many other items which the Government of Maharashtra was not having this type of design. Attention of the Bench was drawn on copy of tender published by the Maharashtra Government and copy of agreement. Attention of the Bench was drawn on relevant clauses of the tender form as well as clauses of the agreement entered into between the assessee and Maharashtra Government to develop the design to make it clear that only developer can develop the design and once it is found that a developer has developed the design then as per provisions of section 80IA(4) the deduction has to be allowed. In the present case the assessee has developed the design and, therefore, the assessee is not merely a contractor but is a developer. Accordingly it was submitted that assessee is entitled for deduction. It was further submitted that the Special Bench in the case of B.T. Patil have decided this issue in favour of the department. However, there are so many discrepancies in the order of Special Bench. Relevant discrepancies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. Attention of the Bench was drawn on operative para of the order of the Tribunal for earlier year. Further strong reliance was on the order of AO as well as order of ld. CIT (A). It was further stated that the AO has taken into consideration the amended explanation and the reasons for denying the deduction in earlier year. It was further submitted that assessee is purely a contractor and nothing is doing in respect to developing as the gates are manufactured by the assessee as per contract. Even assessee is not investing its own funds as they were funded by Maharashtra Government. In fact, Maharashtra Government has hired the assessee to supply and fit the gates in the dam. Various other parties were also involved, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has developed the project and, therefore, AO and ld. CIT (A) were justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee. It was further submitted that the assessee was allowed work of fitting the gates and to maintain dam for only two years so that the employees of the Maharashtra Government could be trained, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has developed any design of the gate and is mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court was again read by ld. A/R and it was stated that this is on the identical facts and, therefore, the same is applicable. In respect to the argument of ld. CIT D/R that no funds have been invested by the assessee, it was submitted that it was totally incorrect. Assessee has invested its own funds and before granting the contract to the assessee, the Maharashtra Government has asked for bank guarantee which has been given by the assessee. Therefore, this is totally wrong that assessee has not invested its own funds. The assessee after completing the project has raised the bill on the Corporation and thereafter after inspecting the work done by the assessee then only payment was cleared by The Corporation to the assessee. Therefore, this is not a case that Corporation invested its own fund and not the assessee. 8. We have heard rival submissions and we have considered them carefully. Though we have noted all the arguments advanced by ld. A/R and ld. CIT D/R, however, we would like to reproduce the written submissions advanced by ld. A/R as well as by ld. CIT D/R here in the order of Tribunal so that no argument of any party could be missed. Brief submission of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent case pertains to A.Y. 2007-08. In any case, this proposition has been later on reversed by the Bombay High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries (para 25 of Pg 405 of PB-3). (d) In paras 37 to 43, the Tribunal has held that the assessee in that case is not a developer but merely a contractor. This is factual finding and in the present case the question has to be decided based on the facts of the case. - In earlier years, the assessee has been held to be developer and not merely contractor. - The Tribunal in those years has considered 2007 Explanation and thereafter has held that the assessee is not merely contractor. - The issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee vide the decision of the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. KCL BEL Tarmat Jv. V. ITO for A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No. 1112/RJT/2010 (Pg. 406 to 416 of PB- 3). This decision has been rendered after considering the Special Bench decision in the case of B.T. Patil. - Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (subsequent to Mumbai Special Bench decision) in the case of ABG Heavy Industries that providing crane to port would also amount to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....development of whole facility. (j) In paras 51 to 57, the Tribunal has considered 2007 as well as 2009 Explanation. In the assessee's case after considering 2007 Explanation, it has been held that assessee is not a contractor. 2009 Explanation is very much similar to 2007 Explanation and hence, in substance, there is no change in facts or law from the decision of Tribunal in A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05. - In any case, as stated hereinabove, the question as to whether the assessee is a developer or a contractor is purely a question of fact and has to be decided on the basis of facts of each case. In the present case, this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this very Bench of the Tribunal. - Interestingly, in the above referred decision of Bombay High Court, rendered much after the retrospective Explanation of 2009 brought on the statute book, it has been held that a person providing crane to the port authority is a 'developer'. (Para 7, 8 on Pg.395, para 18 on Pg. 400). The law laid down by Bombay High Court by their judgment dated 29.03.2011, much after Finance Act, 2009, has to be considered as the final word as of now. Reliance is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the assessee against an order of ld. CIT (A) passed under section 250 on 13.04.2010. Ground No. 1: In this ground the assessee has challenged the decision of ld. CIT (A) in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80 IA(4) of the I.T. Act 1961 amounting to Rs. 16,89,16,692/-. 1) The facts of this deduction u/s 80IA(4) claimed by the assessee are discussed in para 2.1 of the order of the A.O. at page no. 2. In the return of income filed the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 16,89,16,692/- u/s 80 IA(4) in respect of Goshi Khurd Project. The Goshi Khurd Project is an irrigation project promoted by the Govt. of Maharashtra. This irrigation Project is being constructed on river Bannganga in Bhandara district of Maharashtra state. The project envisages construction of earthen dam of 11.35 km. this dam is being constructed for providing irrigation to Bhandara, Nagpur and Chandrapur districts of Maharashtra and also provides drinking water to various places. The construction of the project started in the year 1981 and is proposed to be completed by 2008. The project is being implemented by the Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur (a Govt. of Maha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for deduction u/s 80IA(4). 2) In the grounds of appeal the assessee has also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07. It has been claimed that in these A.Ys Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the deduction u/s 80IA(4) on the income of the Goshi Khurd Project by treating it as infrastructural development project of the assessee company. In this respect it is submitted that this issue of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4) was decided by Hon'ble ITAT for A.Ys 2003-04 & 2004-05 vide a common order dated 31.12.2008. The issue was decided for A.Ys 2005-06 & 2006-07 vide a common order of Hon'ble ITAT dated 24.07.2009. On examination of the order of A.Ys 2005-06 & 2006-07, it is seen that it is based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT for A.Ys 2003-04 and 2004-05 as the decision has been reproduced in para 5 of this order on page 4. For A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004- 05, Hon'ble Tribunal has discussed its decision in para 10. It is seen that Hon'ble Tribunal has given its decision on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT 94 ITD 411 and has extensively re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Since the explanation to section 80IA(4) has been added and as per explanation if any work is allotted to an assessee on contract basis then no deduction under section 80IA(4) is allowable. In view of the department the assessee is a contractor who entered into contract with Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur (a Govt. of Maharashtra Undertaking) (hereinafter referred to as VIDC) to execute specific work of erection of radial gates. The assignment of the work is on contract basis, therefore, assessee is a contractor and deduction is not allowable. Whereas, assessee's case is that assessee is a developer and Tribunal in case of assessee itself while deciding the appeals for assessment; years 2003-04 to 06-07 has held that the assessee is a developer and once assessee has been found as a developer then in the year under consideration a different view cannot be taken. It is the case of the assessee also that even explanation added to section 80IA(4) has been considered by the Tribunal while disposing the appeals for assessment years 2003-04 and 04-05 also and there is no material difference in the amended explanation by Finance Act, 2009 as words Central or State Gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pply to a person who executes works contract entered into with the undertaking or the enterprises, as the case may be. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued under section 263. Assessee filed detailed written submission along with the decision of Tribunal in case of Patel Engineering Co, 84 TTJ 646 (Mum.). However, the ld. CIT was not satisfied as the decision of Patel Engineering Co. was before the Explanation added to section 80IA(4) by the Finance Act, 2007. Accordingly the order of the AO was set aside and the AO was directed to re-compute the income accordingly. Assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal against the order under section 263 passed by ld. CIT. Detailed written submissions were filed. The amended provisions of section 80IA(4) by Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000 were explained. Attention of the Bench was drawn on the clauses of agreement as well as the design developed by the assessee and accordingly it was submitted that the assessee is not merely a contractor but it is a developer. Reliance was placed again on the decision of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. by which definition of 'developer' and 'contractor' was discussed and thereaft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the various facts of the case and provisions of law particularly the retrospective amendment brought into the said section by the Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect. Reliance was placed on various case laws by ld. CIT D/R. 13. On merits also, the arguments were advanced on behalf of the department and it was submitted that the issue as to whether the contractors associated with the infrastructure project were eligible for the deduction or not had become debatable and in order to put such debates to rest, by the Finance Act, 2007, an Explanation was added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000 and, therefore, the same has to be read into the above provisions during assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 14. Regarding the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., it was submitted that after the amended provisions of law the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court does not hold good. Thereafter the Tribunal after discussing the argument of both the sides and taking into consideration the amended provisions of section 80IA(4) and also taking into consideration the decision of the Tribunal in case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd (supra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se was not eligible for deduction on the profit derived from "developing" the infrastructure facility ; (iii) The company is only a contractor carrying out a specific work with respect to the irrigation project and is not the developer of the irrigation project ; and (iv) This view has been clarified by the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2007. 11. The ld. CIT also disagreed with the assessee that decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) covers the issue. He observed that the citation is misplaced as this decision relates to assessment year 2000-01, wherein the provisions of section 80IA(4) were different. The ld. CIT noted further that this decision has not been accepted by the department as appeal has been preferred by the department before the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court, which is pending. There is no dispute that under the provisions of section 263 the ld. CIT has been empowered with supervisory jurisdiction and it is not an arbitrary or unchartered power for invoking these provisions under section 263 of the Act. For application of provisions u/s 263, two conditions are required to be fulfil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oping", (ii) "maintaining and operating" or (iii) "developing, maintaining and operating" any infrastructure facility. As per clause (c) to this section water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system were also included in infrastructure facility. In assessment year 2002-03 the word " or " was introduced in between like (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility. In assessment years 2003-04 to 06-07 there was no change in the said provision. In the assessment year 2006- 07 in clause (a) to that section i.e. one of the other conditions required to be fulfilled for claiming the deduction the wordings " it is owned by a company registered in India or by consortium of such companies" were extended by adding wordings " ....... Or by an authority or a board or a corporation or any other body established or constituted under any Central or State Act ". By the Finance Act, 2007, an Explanation was introduced at the bottom of the section 80IA with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000. Vide this Explanation meant for removal of doubt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts and circumstances has held that the assessee therein was the developer or infrastructure project and eligible for deduction under section 80IA. As per the Law Dictionary, the term "development" is bringing into being, converting natural resources, like land into a specific purpose by building extensively, realizing and making real the potential of natural resources, and bring to a more advanced or effective stage etc. For a ready reference, we are reproducing here under para 47 of the said decision in the case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. :- " There has also been the contention of the Revenue that the assessee is a contactor, executing civil contract and so it cannot be the developer as such. However, we are unable to agree with this contention of the Revenue. A person, who enters into a contract with another person will be a contractor no doubt; and the assessee having entered into an agreement with the Government of Maharashtra and also with APSEB for development of the infrastructure projects, is obviously a contractor but that does not derogate the assessee from being a developer as well. The term "contractor" is not essentially contradictory to the term "develop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ping or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining" a new infrastructure facility. Thus there has to be an agreement between the enterprise developer and the Government. We thus find substance in the contention of the ld. A/R that assessee is a developer and is not a sub-contractor, who as per the Explanation inserted in the section vide Finance Act, 2007 is not eligible to claim deduction. 11.1. So far as the contention of the ld. D/R is concerned regarding that the assessee is not the developer of irrigation project since under section 80IA(4) "developer" who do not "operate and maintain" the infrastructure facilities are not eligible for the deduction, we do not agree with. Since in our view the word "OR" has been inserted in section 80IA(4)(i) as any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing, or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility has been introduced by the legislature from assessment year 2002-03 only to remove the ambiguity. Hence the insertion of word "OR" was clarificatory in nature. This amended provisions of section were very much in operation in the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....htly allowed the claimed deduction to the assessee while placing reliance on the said decision. For a ready reference these paras are being reproduced hereunder :- " 44. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record, we find that in the Srisailam Project, the assessee company has constructed an underground tunnel to provide water supply by connecting the river Krishna to the power house. The assessee has also constructed underground specialized structures such as surge chamber, draft tube tunnels, tail race tunnel which takes the water back to the river for use for irrigation, etc. Similarly, for Koyna Project, the assessee constructed inlet tunnel for water supply upto the point of power house. The above construction work would, in our considered opinion, amount to development, as a new facility has been developed. In fact, we may note that the Revenue authorities too have not denied the factum of development having taken place; however, the contention of the Revenue has been that the developer is not the assessee but the Government of Maharashtra in respect of Koyna Project and PSEB in respect of the Srisaila....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be entitled to deduction under section 80IA(4). 46. We have noticed above that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 1999 was with the sole intention/purpose of providing deduction under section 80-IA to the person, who only develops or who only maintains and operates an infrastructure facility. If a person who only develops the infrastructure facility is not paid by the Government, the entire cost of development would be a loss in the hands of the developer as he is not operating the infrastructure facility. When the Legislature has provided that the income of the developer of the infrastructure project would be eligible for deduction, it presupposes that there can be income to developer, i.e., to the person who is carrying on the activity of only developing infrastructure facility. Obvious as it is, a developer would have income only if he is paid for development of infrastructure facility, for the simple reason that he is not having the right/authorization to operate the infrastructure facility and to collect toll therefrom, has no other source of recoupment of his cost of development. Considered as such, we note that the business activity of the nature of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally rejected the contention of the revenue that the developer is not the assessee but the Government of Maharashtra and APSEB, the fact of that case are similar to the fact of the present case and the only difference is that in the present case the Government authority is Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation. On perusal of the assessment orders in question, we find that the AO has given categorical finding on the issue after discussing the same in detail as evident from contents of pages 12 to 18 of the assessment order. In our view, he has also rightly followed the decision of the Tribunal on an identical issue under the similar facts and circumstances in the case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) relied upon by the ACIT before him in support of their submissions. The assessment order, therefore, cannot be held as erroneous merely because the ld. CIT nurturing a different view on the issue. Hence the said assessment orders on the issue, which is not erroneous even if it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue cannot be made a subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. There is also no substance in the contention of the ld. D/R that the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in our view the contention of ld. CIT D/R is not correct. Whole of the finding of the Tribunal has to be taken into consideration and not only the ratio of the decision of Tribunal which has been taken into consideration by the Bench. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the Explanation added to section 80IA as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. The decision of the Tribunal in case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. was taken into consideration by the Bench for the purpose of drawing inference that whether assessee is a 'contractor' or a 'developer'. On the facts of the case involved in case of Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. as compared to the facts of the case in hand, the Tribunal drew a conclusion that facts are similar and, therefore, the assessee is a developer. The Explanation added to section 80IA do not bar the deduction in case of a developer as it bars the deduction in the case of contractor only. The Tribunal has given a categorical finding that assessee is a Developer. 14.2. Once in a particular year an assessee has been declared as a Developer then on the same set of facts the assessee cannot be held as a Contractor in a sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed of this work. The entire package received from consultants/agencies/experts can be studied and evaluated, to the required needs with its appropriate weightage to suit the project requirements and this work will be done through field officers with the help of Central Design Organisation, Nasik and "Panel of Experts" already appointed by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation." General conditions of the contract have also been provided in the detailed Tender Notice which starts from internal page 39. Clause 2.6 is about Performance Security. By this clause successful Bidder shall have to furnish a performance security, equivalent to 10% of the contract amount as specified. Thereafter, in sub-clause (a) of clause 2.6 it has been provided that the Bank Guarantee or Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a Nationalized/Scheduled Bank located in State of Maharashtra has to be provided. At internal page 67 the payment schedule has been prescribed in para 3.9.3 and a specific payment has been given @ 2% on account of design development and 4.5% is for operation and maintenance for subsequent three years after 1st year of reservoir filling and it is also proposed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... development of design or there was no need of development of design then there could not have been payment on account of development of design. Tender specifications specifically provide the cost of design which is 2%. There is also clause of payment on account of maintenance and running and from all these clauses it is established that assessee is not merely a contractor but a Developer also and as per Explanation added to section 80IA the Developer is not barred for deduction under section 80IA(4). Therefore, in our view the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IA(4) as assessee is a Developer. 16. The ld. CIT D/R has relied on the decision of Special Bench in the case of B.T. Patil & Sons and on the decision of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shiva Construction Pvt. Ltd. decided in ITA No. 676/JP/2009 dated 11.6.2010 by which the deduction under section 80IA(4) was denied following the decision of Special Bench in case of B.T. Patil & Sons (supra). This decision of Special Bench in the case of B.T. Patil & Sons has been over ruled now by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (ABG), 322 ITR 323. Therefore, the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the Hon'ble High Court has held that assessee is a developer. The issue has been discussed at great length by the Hon'ble High Court and the factual finding has been given in para 25 which reads as under :- " In the view which we have taken, all the assessment years in question to which this batch of appeals relates would be governed by the same principle. The subsequent amendment of section 80- IA(4A) of the Act to clarify that the provision would apply to an enterprise engaged in (i) developing ; or (ii) operating and maintaining ; or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility was reflective of a position which was always construed to hold the field. Before the amendment that was brought about by Parliament by the Finance Act of 2001, we have already noted that the consistent line of circulars of the Board postulated the same position. The amendment made by Parliament to section 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." From the above observation of Hon'ble High Court, it is clearly and amply p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd maintain for two years to train the staff of the Corporation. This very fact proves that the design is developed by the assessee and developed design has to be performed on the site by giving training to the staff to operate and to maintain the gates fitted in the dam. This proves that the very design was not available with the Corporation and assessee has developed its own design and operating and maintaining for two years so that the staff of the Corporation can learn the operation and maintenance of the same. From this fact it is proved beyond doubt that assessee is a developer and operating and maintaining the specified gates designed by the assessee. 17.3. The ld. D/R has also taken a ground that assessee has not invested its own funds as they were taken from the VIDC. We have discussed various clauses of detailed Tender Notice and thereafter schedule of contract and found that on allotting the contract to the assessee, the assessee has to give a security of 10% equal to the cost of contract before starting the work on the contract awarded to the assessee. Thereafter the assessee has invested its own money in developing the design of Gates and manufacturing the Gates aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee can be said to be a developer and that the assessee cannot be denied deduction from the profits of developing the infrastructure facility though it may not operate or maintain the same, particularly in view of the insertion of the word "or" in section 80IA(4). The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Others, 227 ITR 414 (SC) (at page 417) was also taken into consideration, copy of the decision of the Tribunal as well as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court are placed in the Paper Book at pages 406 to 423. 17.3. In case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Ors, 227 ITR 414 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the word "development" in section 10(20A) of the I.T. Act should be understood in its wide sense. There is no warrant to exclude all development programmes relating to any industry from the purview of the word " development " in the said clause. There is no indication in the Act that development envisaged therein should be confirmed to non-industrial activities. Development of a place can be accelerated through varieties of schemes and establishment of industries is one of the modes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and not on a rigid way. The assessee is developing the design of Gates and thereafter Gates are erected on the gates of dam and they are operated and maintained by the assessee for two years. Therefore, in our view, in view of the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court also the claim of the assessee is allowable. 18. We further noted that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Laxmi Civil Engg. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 766/PN/2009 and Others, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. ABG (supra). The decision of Special Bench in case of B.T. Patil & Sons was cited before the Pune Bench and it was held that the decision of Special Bench has been reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. ABG and, therefore, the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IA(4). In this case also the department disallowed deduction under section 80IA(4) by holding that assessee is a contractor and failed to comply with all the conditions specified in sub clause of section 80 IA(4). Thereafter matter reached to the Tribunal and the Tribunal taking into consideration the decision of Special Be....