AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The Revenue in ITA No.948/PUN/2014 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 2) The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee was a developer within the meaning of sub sec. (4) of section 80IA of the Act and not a contractor, as had been held by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the assessee had merely carried out works contracts awarded to it by contracting authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection (13) of section 80IA would apply to a sub-contractor and not to a contractor. 7) The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the contractee agencies had deducted tax at sources u/s.194C from the payments made to the assessee which substantiates the contractor-contractee relationship between the assessee and the developing agencies. 4. The assessee in CO No.10/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of objections:- a) The learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice under section 148 when he could not have exercised powers under section 147 and that the learned Assessing Officer erred in not appreciating the facts that his action amounted to a change of opini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tender basis, then the assessee cannot be held to be in the business of developing, operating and maintaining infrastructure facilities as envisaged under section 80IA(4) of the Act, but merely carried out work contract assigned to it by the State Government. Hence, the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act was denied to the assessee. 7. The CIT(A) first decided the issue of reopening of assessment under section 147 / 148 of the Act against the assessee. Thereafter, he decided the issue of claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act, wherein the plea of assessee was that in terms of agreement with Maharashtra State Government, it had undertaken development of irrigation projects, which envisaged building an earthen ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f agreement with the Government and the Explanation refers to a contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise and not with the Government of India, hence, it denies relief only to the sub-contractors and not the principal contractors. Reliance in this regard was further placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its order dated 24.01.2013. On similar issue in the case of B.T. Patil & Sons, Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 1 ITR (Trib) 703 (Mum) (TM), the Tribunal had decided the issue against the assessee. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had set aside the matter to the Tribunal, which in turn, following the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra) decided the issue in favou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d has held that it is not works contract. Further, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra). 12. We find that the issue of allowability of claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act has arisen before the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Infraprojects Ltd. in ITA Nos.142 to 147/PUN/2016, relating to assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13, order dated 17.01.2018, wherein it has been held as under:- "13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the facts of the present case, the assessee was engaged in the business of executing contracts of civil work. In the return of income filed for the year under consideration, ....