TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 74,73,80,890/-. Later it filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2013, declaring the same income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2014 interalia making disallowances on account of (a) bogus purchases and bogus sub-contract expenses, (b) deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, (c) disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and (d) disallowance of employee's contribution towards ESI & PF. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. CIT(A) deleted all the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, except disallowance on account of bogus purchases/sub-contract expenses. 3. Further aggrieved both the assessee as well as the revenue are in appeal before us. 4. We have heard Shri, S.K. Tulsiyan, the ld. Counsel for the assessee and Shri A.K. Nayak, the ld. CIT D/R on behalf of the revenue. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 5. We first take up the assessee's appeal in ITA No.1572/Kol/2017; Assessment Year 2011-12. 6. The sole issue that is agitated by the assessee is the disallowance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statements recorded by the Assessing Officer from the five parties, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that wrong inferences were drawn based on certain discrepancies in the statements. Even otherwise, it was submitted that no opportunity for cross-examination of the parties was given to the assessee. He listed out the reasons cited out by the Assessing Officer for the above disallowances and controverted the same point wise. He submitted that simply because these parties were found to provide accommodation entries to M/s. Soma Enterprises and M/s. Navyuga Engineering, which are third party infrastructure companies, it cannot be stated that similar bogus accommodation entries were given to the assessee. He relied on a number of case-law and prayed that the disallowance be deleted. The ld. D/R, on the other hand, disputed the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) have given very detailed reasons as to why the purchases in question and the labour payments in question were treated as bogus. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has not made the disallowance merely on the basis of information sent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them as bogus. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee on requirement of materials and labour at its various construction sites placed orders through purchase orders (purchase orders are enclosed at pages 1-53 of the paperbook) and the six parties provided required materials and labour at the construction sites, pursuant to which their payments were made by the assessee through proper banking channels (copy of bank statements are enclosed at pages 1- 04, 11-12, 23-24, 32-36, 44 of the paperbook). Thus there were high value frequent deposits made by the assessee in the accounts of those six parties for providing material and labour regularly at its construction sites. Further it needs to be noted that whether these six parties acted in concert with each other in order to supply materials and labour to the assessee or for any other purpose, is not the assessee's lookout. Aslong as the assessee got delivery of the required materials and labour from the said parties and made their due payments for providing the same, the assessee's obligation towards those parties ended. Thereafter no liability can be fastened on the assessee in consequence to any action of those six parti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arties i.e. Siddhi Vinayak Steel, Asian Steel Corporation, Suraj Tube Corporation, Chanchal Tube Corporation to be Hawala parties. In this regard it is submitted the assessee would like to submit that the four parties namely Siddhi Vinayak Steel, Asian Steel Corporation, Suraj Tube Corporation, Chanchal Tube Corporation, being declared Hawala by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department cannot be a basis for declaring the assessee's purchases as bogus since the purchases were not made by the assessee from these four parties. Moreover, though it does not effect or concern the assessee in any way, it would like to submit that the fact that these parties were declared as Hawala Parties is an observation/declaration of a third party, i.e. the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, which cannot be the sole basis for holding any transactions as bogus. 4 In case of search in one Soma Enterprises and Navyuga Engineering of Hyderabad, both the concerns admitted to taking accommodation entries from the six parties, from whom the assessee purchased labour and materials during the relevant A.Y. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee made payments to the six parties for supply of ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the bank accounts have been used by the suppliers (apart from receiving payments from the assessee). The assessee while placing orders with the six parties for supply of materials and labour contracts were provided with their respective bank accounts for the purpose of making payment. Thereafter, the assessee was not concerned about how and for what other purpose the six parties were using their bank accounts. Also, even for the sake of argument if it is accepted that the said six parties were providing accommodation entries and hence received payments from several parties, it cannot be said that the deposits received by them from the assessee for labour contract and supply of materials were bogus as the said purchases are backed by relevant documents. Further the fact that the accounts of the six parties were opened from addresses located in Kurla (West), which are in close vicinity to one another cannot be a basis to doubt the purchases made by the assessee. Though, it is not the assessee's lookout as to in which branch of a particular bank, its suppliers' and contractors' bank accounts rested but still the assessee would like to submit that the bank where the bank accounts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... make payments in return of supply of materials and labour, which it had accomplished successfully. Thereafter, the assessee was under no obligation to keep knowledge/track about the further treatment or movement of those payments made by it. Further, although it does not affect the assessee's purchases in any way but still the assessee would like to mention that the proprietors of the five concerns (out of the six), in their statements given u/s 131 of the Income tax act, 1961 (enclosed at pages 106 to 150 of the paper book) have mentioned that they knew each other and transferred funds to each other sometimes on temporary basis because of mutual relations and also hired labour from each other when required, in return of due payment. They would also take supply of labour from other parties to supply to the assessee or other clients in return of due payment to them. Thus payment by the said parties to each other or other parties can be because of any of the said reasons. It definitely does not imply or prove that the assessee had been transferring funds to the six parties for routing the same through a web of bank accounts and receive the funds back again by inflating expenses i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot feasible. Above all, it is not the assessee's liability as to how cash payment is transferred to labourers working at the project sites by the said suppliers/subcontractors as long as the assessee's requirement of materials/labour at its project site is supplied and the assessee makes due payment in return. Therefore, observation by the Ld. AO on this account cannot be a basis to fasten liability on the assessee of having made bogus purchases. 10 The Ld. AO alleged that the assessee being a company with a turnover exceeding Rs. 5,500 Crore, would have a completely professional system of hiring labour contractors and suppliers of material for quality construction and would not appoint labour contractors who are individuals located only in Mumbai for the purpose of supplying at its various sites, all over the country. In this regard, the assessee would like to submit that it having a professional system of hiring labour contractors and suppliers of material for quality construction does not cease to exist if such suppliers/labour contractors are individuals. There are no set of rules/guidelines to determine the professional system of hiring labour contractors or suppli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r contractors and material suppliers for supply of labour and material at its construction sites, it was not the assessee's concern or duty to keep a track as to the amount of money withdrawn by the said contractors and suppliers. The said contractors and suppliers having withdrawn amounts below Rs. 10,00,000/- thus, does not concern the assessee in any way since post payment it is their money and when and how such money is to be withdrawn and its further utilization is not the assessee's domain. It is also not clear as to what was the reason of the benchmarking of Rs. 10 lakhs by the Ld. AO since under Income Tax Act, no such benchmarking prevails. 13 The Ld. AO held that the said six parties knew each other and the high frequencies of cheque movement amongst themselves through their respective bank accounts prove that they were acting in concert to provide accommodation entries to the assessee for inflating its expenses. In response to the above observation of the Ld. AO, the assessee would like to submit that materials and labour were supplied by each of the six parties to the assessee, individually, as and when requirement arose and payments were also made by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d activities does not concern the payments made by the assessee for giving sub contract of labour to Supreme Construction in any way. Further, without prejudice to the above, the assessee would like to submit that the Ld. AO has raised a doubt regarding contradiction in Supreme Construction's proprietor's statement regarding payment of labour wages in the F.Y. 2009-10whereas the instant case of the appeal is concerning the A.Y. 2011-12. Hence, the same cannot be linked with the assessee's purchases made in the relevant A.Y. The relevant documents supporting such purchase from Supreme Construction is enclosed at pages 11 to 22 of the paper book. 16. The Ld. AO alleged that there has been contradictions in the statement given by the proprietor of Brytex Industries u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1916 and the representation made by him before the AO at the time of completing his assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11 since before the AO he submitted that the entire wage expenditure was paid by him in cash whereas at the time of giving statement he mentioned that he was trading in materials under the name 'Brytex Industries' and in materials under the name 'Insha Construction' (anothe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irect evidence obtained against the assessee. Unlike in other cases, these persons have confirmed the transaction. The evidence produced is not controverted by the revenue. 9. Further on the observations made by the ld. CIT the assessee replied to the same as follows:- Sl.No. observations of the Ld. CIT Reply of the Assessee Company 1. • On a perusal of the statements of the five persons following point emerges: • Although they got orders from big and established companies, but they were not selected through any tenders. • All of them claimed to have started business arounf F.Y. 2008-09 and filed returns of income only upto A.Y. 2011-12. Businesses of all these persons had closed down and they had closed their bank account in the ICICI Bank. • All of them were conducting business from chawls/residential areas and employed very few persons. They claimed to have travelled to far away places by train on several occasions carrying cash for payments to labourers working at construction sites, but none of them had kept the train tickets. If they were involved in genuine business activities they could have claimed travelli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is of the statements of the five parties are baseless and is devoid of any merit. 2. Assessee's contention that Ld. A.O. treated assessee's purchase from six parties as bogus on the basis of information accumulated by him in case of third parties, is not correct. A.O. has applied his mind to the facts gathered, recorded statements of the suppliers, pointed out discrepancies in their statements and has established that these parties were not capable of providing any services/materials. In the process of establishing that the six parties were not involved in any genuine business transactions, A.O. has also pointed out the dubious nature of activities which these parties indulged in while dealing with others and information in respect of those activities collected through various sources. It is not on the basis of third party information A.O. has reached a conclusion in assessee's case. The assessee's case is backed by documentary evidences with regard to purchases made from Brytex Industries, Nikhil Enterprises, Supreme Construction, Purnima Construction and Nova Construction like bank statement, purchase order, item supplier's invoice, tax invoice, delivery challan (specime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said six parties is ingenuine. The assessee company had produced all the necessary evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions of the assessee company with the said six parties. The Ld. A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT has not doubted any documents placed on record. Transactions are backed by proper evidence. The conclusion drawn by the Ld. A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) is totally based on surmises and conjectures. There is no direct connection between the facts of the assessee company and the conclusion drawn by the Ld. A.O. that the purchases are bogus. In this light it is submitted that until and unless there is a direct nexus between the conclusion drawn by the Ld. A.O. and the facts of the case, addition cannot be made merely on surmises and conjectures. ii. 4. Assessee submits that once the payments were made to the six parties, it was not its responsibility to keep watch as to how payments are made to the labourers. These parties have claimed that they withdrew cash from their bank accounts in Mumbai and carried the cash physically to work sites. This claim does not appear genuine as the banks are providing facility of "anywhere banking" to its custome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld not be given on reference of inconsequential persons like scrap dealers. These parties did not even have bank account when they were shortlisted for doing work. These persons were not filing any return of income. Any rational/prudent business man of the stature of assessee would not associate with such parties in the normal course of business, unless there are ulterior motives. These people have no experience and no infrastructure to execute the work give to them. Besides their dealings with others have been proved to be only Hawala in nature. There is no doubt about the professional nature of assessee's activities. That is why its dealings with the six persons, under the circumstances mentioned does not appear to be genuine. One of the parties has claimed to have received contract from SAIL and other public sector companies. However, no evidence was produced in this regard. In this connection the assessee submits that the assessee company having a professional system of hiring labour contractors and suppliers of materials for quality management does not cease to exist if such suppliers/labour contractors are individuals. There are no set of rules/guidelines to determine t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that the AO had received information from the investigation wing of STD, Maharashtra that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries, that Shiv Sagar the supplier of the goods was one of the entities who had admitted to have bogus bills, that the assessee had asked for cross examination of the supplier but same was not given, that the AO had not supplied the copy of the statements of Shiv Sagar to the assessee, that in the books of accounts of the assessee all the purchases and sales were recorded, that payments were made through banking channels, that the AO had made addition of entire purchases u/s.69 of the Act, that the FAA had reduced it to 20%. It is a fact that the AO had not rejected the sales of the assessee and the assessee was maintaining the quantative details and stock register. In our opinion, once the sales are accepted as genuine or not doubted the AO cannot reject the entire purchase. In the case of Nikunj Eximp (supra)the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held if sales were not doubted by the AO and copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through account payee cheques to the suppliers, copies of invoices for purchases and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... propositions of law laid down in the above referred caselaw, we uphold the contentions of the assessee and delete the addition made herein. 11. We now take up the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 1764/Kol/2017. 12. Ground No. 1, is against the deletion of the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act, by the ld. CIT(A). 12.1. The ld. CIT(A) followed the proposition of law laid down by the ITAT Kolkata Bench's decision in the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2007-08. At para 3.3.2, page 25 to 37, he held as follows:- "3.3.2. I have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the assessee. Perusal of the ITAT order for assmt. Year 2007-08 shows that Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata have upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-XII, mentioning as under: 3.1 The aforesaid projects were awarded by Central / State Government /Local Authority / Statutory Body on turnkey basis. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings observed that assessee is acting as a contractor. Accordingly, AO opined that assessee is executing the projects as works contractor within the meaning of Explanation to Sec. 80IA of the Act. On question by the AO fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. It is not necessary that the entire infrastructure project is to be developed by one enterprise. In another case of CIT v. Bharat Udyog Ld. [2008] 24 SOT 412 (Mum), it has been held that if an assessee is engaged in developing infrastructure facility (i.e road) but not engaged in "operating and maintaining" said facility, it can claim the benefits of deduction under section 80- IA. The ratio laid down in the reported cases are squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case and hence the appellant being a developer of infrastructure facility discussed above is entitled for deduction under sec. 80-I of the Act. It is also observed that there Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT 'B' Bench, Kolkata in the cases of M/s Simplex Som Datta Builders J.V. vs. ITO Ward 33(4), Kolkata in Appeal No. 1684/Kol/2011 for AY 2007-08 and in the case of M/s Simplex Subhas J.V. vs. ITO Ward 33(4) Kolkata in Appeal No.1685/Kol/2011 for AY 2007-08, respectively vide their order dated 18.06.2013, held in para 11 & 12 of the order while deciding on the issue having identical set of facts of the cases that the assessee were enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of April, 1999 by an enterprise which developed such infrastructure facility (hereafter referred to in this section as the transferor enterprise) to another enterprise (hereafter in this section referred to as the transferee enterprise) for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Central Government, State Government, local authority or statutory body, the provisions of this section shall apply to the transferee enterprise as if it were the enterprise to which this clause applies and the deduction from profits and gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place. 6.1 From the above it is clear in order to avail deduction u/s 80-IA all the following conditions should be satisfied: (i) The assessee is a company or a consortium of companies; (ii) There exists an agreement with the Central Government, State Government, Local authority or any other statutory body and (iii) Pursuant to the agreement specified in point (ii) the company engages its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exertion to attain an end esp. as controlled by and for the benefit of the employer. Thus as per Blacks's Law also a works contract is a labour contract under which the contractor merely employs his labour as per the directions of the contractee. Further, attention is invited to relevant extracts of section 194C of the IT Act: "(iv) "work" shall include- (a) Advertising; (b) Broadcasting and telecasting including production of programmes for such broadcasting or telecasting; (c) Carriage of goods or passengers by any mode of transport other than by railways; (d) Catering; (e) Manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer, but does not include manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from a person, other than such customer." Thus as per section 194C also, "works contract" does not include a contract wherein the contractor in addition to employing labour, procures material from a third party. Thus, contracts involving mere labour of the contractor are included in the purview of "work....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho by applying his labour to the said material turns the material into a desired product. Further, attention is invited to the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2007, reported in [2007] 289 ITR (St.) 292 at page 312, which reads as under: "Section 80-lA, inter alia, provides for a ten-year tax benefit to an enterprise or an undertaking engaged in development of infrastructure facilities, industrial parks and special economic zones. The tax benefit was introduced for the reason that industrial modernization requires a passive expansion of, and qualitative improvement in, infrastructure (viz., expressways, highways, airports, ports and rapid urban rail transport systems) which was lacking in our country. The purpose of the tax benefit has all along been {or encouraging private sector participation by way of investment in development of the infrastructure sector and not {or the persons who merely execute the civil construction work or any other works contract." Accordingly, it is proposed to clarify that the provisions of section 80- IA shall not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise referred to in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple to use the available existing facility even while the process of development is in progress. Any loss to the public caused in the process would be the responsibility of the assessee. The assessee has to develop the infrastructure facility. In the process, all the works are to be executed by the assessee. It may be laying of a drainage system; may be construction of a project; provision of way for the cattle and bullock carts in the village; provision for traffic without any hindrance, the assessee's duty is to develop infrastructure whether it involves construction of a particular item as agreed to in the agreement or not. The agreement is not for a specific work, it is for development of facility as a whole. The assessee is not entrusted with any specific work to be done by the assessee. The material required is to be brought in by the assessee by sticking to the quality and quantity irrespective of the cost of such material. The Government does not provide any material to the assessee. It provides the works in packages and not as a works contract. The assessee utilizes its funds, its expertise, its employees and takes the responsibility of developing the infrastructure fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntractor. However, if under a contract, the contractor employs his capital and enterprise in addition to labour, then the said contract does not constitute a works contract under the Explanation to section 80-IA(l3) and the contractor shall be eligible for deduction U/S 80-IA. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is submitted that the assessee was not mere works contractor, who had merely employed its labour under the projects from the various government authorities. The assessee was a developer. In addition to employing labour it made investments, it developed an enterprise/infrastructure to support the work under the various projects. In addition to labour, it deployed its machinery, materials and did all the things necessary (i.e. provided an enterprise) to support the construction work undertaken under the various projects. The assessee was provided with the site alone and by putting its own inputs (not labour alone) he converted the site into an infrastructural facility. 6.5 Further, ITAT (Hyderabad) in case of Siva Swathi Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, Circle-3(2) in ITA No.1008-09/Hyd/2013 for AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 dated 25.10.2013 held that "The next reason given by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of an infrastructure facility under a scheme by which an enterprise would build, own, lease and eventually transfer the facility. " "This was perhaps a practical realisation of the fact a developer may not possess the wherewithal, expertise or resources to operate a facility, once constructed Parliament eventually stepped in to clarify that it was not invariably necessary for a developer to operate and maintain the facility. Parliament when it amended the law was obviously aware of the administrative practice resulting in the circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The fact that in such a scheme. An enterprise would not operate the facility itself was not regarded as being a statutory bar to the entitlement to a deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. " 6.6 From the above it is clear that even if an assessee is merely developing the infrastructural facility (without operating and maintaining the same), it is entitled to deduction u/s 80-1A. Further, condition (b) laid out in sub-section 4 of section 80-IA mandates the existence of an agreement with the Government. Moreover, if section 80-IA grants deduction on profits from the activity of development carried out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining' thereof by such person, there cannot be any question of providing a condition for such an enterprise to start operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after 1st April, 1995. Since the assessee is only a developer of the infrastructure project and it is not maintaining and operating the infrastructure facility, sub-cl. (c) of cl. (i) of sub-s. (4) of s. 80-IA is not applicable. The interpretation of Revenue is absurd also in view of the rationale of the provisions of s. 80-IA(4)(i). From the asst. yr. 2000-01, deduction is available if the assessee carries on the business of any one of the three types of activities. When an assessee is only developing an infrastructure facility project and is not maintaining nor operating it, obviously such an assessee will be paid for the cost incurred by it; otherwise, how will the person who develops the infrastructure facility project, realise its cost ? If the infrastructure facility, just after its development, is transferred to the Government, naturally the cost would be paid by the Government. Therefore, merely because the transferee has paid for the development of infrastructure facility carried out by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eveloper. Therefore, merely because in the agreement for development of infrastructure facility, assessee is referred to as contractor or because some basic specifications are laid down, it does not detract the assessee from the position of being a developer; nor will it debar the assessee from claiming deduction under s. 80-IA(4). Therefore, an assessee who is only engaged in the developing the infrastructural facility i.e., road and not engaged in the 'operating and maintaining' the said facility is entitled to the benefits of the deduction under s. 80-IA(4).--Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 84 TTJ (Mumbai) 646 followed. Provisions of sub-cl. (c) of cl. (i) of s. 80-IA(4) are inapplicable to the assessee which is engaged in mere developing of the infrastructure facility and, therefore, an assessee who is only engaged in developing the infrastructure facility and not in 'operating and maintaining' the said facility is entitled to the benefit of deduction under s. 80-IA(4); merely because assessee is referred to as 'contractor' in the agreement for development of infrastructure facility or some basic specifications are laid down, would not debar th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on u/s 80IA(4) infrastructure facility is only required to be developed and there is no condition that assessee should also operate the same. Thus, after amendment, when the assessee is not required to operate the facility, the payment for development of such infrastructure is required to be made by the Government only. "After amendment, when assessee undertakes to develop the infrastructure facility only, it is the Government who will make payment to assessee in respect of infrastructure facility developed by it in terms of agreement so entered with Government. Thus, we do not find any infringement of conditions {or claim of deduction" 6.7 Thus from the above, it is clear that the fact that the assessee had received payments from the Government in progress of its work has no bearing on eligibility of deduction u/s 80- IA. Further, the Revenue in all the grounds has contended that the contracts entered into by the assessee were merely 'construction contracts' since the assessee is not exposed to any entrepreneurial and investment risk. In this regard, the AO has observed that the assessee is executing the contract against predetermined revenue w.r.t the above, it is subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t expected to raise bills at every step of construction but he is expected to charge the cost of construction plus mark-up of his profit from the assignee of the contract. (k) That a developer is therefore expected to arrange finances and also to undertake risk. (I) That in contrast to the rights of a "contractor" a "developer" is authorized to raise funds either by private placement or by financial institutions on the basis of the project. These are few broad qualities of a developer through which the character of a developer can be defined. " (ii) ITAT(Hyderabad) in case of Koya and Co. Construction (P) Ltd. vs ACIT [51 SOT 203] held that "The explanatory memorandum to Finance Act 2007 states that the purpose of the tax benefit has all long been to encourage investment in development of infrastructure sector and not for the persons who merely execute the civil construction work. It categorically states that the deduction under section 80IA of the Act is available to developers who undertakes entrepreneurial and investment risk and not for the contractors, who undertakes only business risk. Without any doubt, the learned counsel for the assessee clearly demonstrated before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to section 80-IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80- IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer' u/s 80-1A. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed for the aforesaid project u/s 80-IA cannot be denied by invoking the explanation to section 80- 1A. 7. From the perusal of the terms and conditions in the agreement, it is clear that the assessee was not a works contractor simplicitor and was a developer and hence Explanation to section 80- IA(13) does not apply to the assessee. Further, in addition to developing the infrastructure facility, the assessee was even operating and maintaining the same. Thus, clearly the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80-1A. In our considered view do not find any reason to uphold the order of ld. CIT(A). Hence this ground of appeal of the Assessee is allowed. We also find that the facts of the case of the assessee are identical as that of the above case of the assessee's own case (supra). In the light of above reasoning, we hold that the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct 8. Bangalore Development Authority 2463 1,81,00,798 New Project Total 54,73,47,509 12.2.1. As can be seen from the above chart, the projects from Serial No. 1 to 2 have been considered as eligible projects for claim of deduction u/s 80-IA(4) by the Tribunal in the earlier Assessment Years. Only in the case of Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation at S. No. 7 and Bangalore Development Authority at S. No. 8, the projects were not considered earlier as to whether they are projects on which the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. On a query from the Bench, the assessee submitted that the details of the duties and responsibilities of the assessee company as a contractor have been place in the paper book. In our view, this needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer as the Assessing Officer has not considered the same. For the earlier Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, this Bench of the Tribunal under similar circumstances has restored four projects to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining whether they fall within the ken of exemption u/s 80-IA of the Act. These are as follows:- a) Development of Bust Terminal Complex for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n towards PF & ESI 17. The ld. CIT(A) allowed all the grounds of the assessee except the disallowance of purchases from M/s. Brytex Industries & M/s. Nikhil Enterprises. Both the parties before us have submitted that the arguments are the same as those made for the Assessment Year 2011-12, on the same issue and as the facts are identical. No separate arguments are advanced. 18. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 19. Disallowance on account of bogus purchases and sub-contract expenses. This issue has been discussed in detail for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The facts, arguments and the conclusions of the Bench apply mutatis mutandis to this ground also. Consistent with the view taken therein, we allow this ground of the assessee. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 20. We now take up the revenue appeal in ITA. No. 1765/Kol/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 21. Ground No. 1 is against the deletion of disallowance made u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act. The projects on which deduct....