TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cility on BOT basis for Indore Municipal Corporation. The assessee has constructed foot-over bridges and road signages for Indore Municipal Corporation. The assessee claimed that footover bridges are covered under the expression 'bridge' and road signages are covered in expression 'road'. Thus, foot over bridges and road signages are part infrastructure facility and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of both the structures. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer disallowed aforesaid assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act holding foot-over bridges and installation of road signages does not fall within the meaning of " in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the activity of construction of road signages and foot over bridges over the roads carried on by the assessee for this year. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the activity of construction of foot over bridges and construction of road signages amounted to development of roads and formed an integral and mandatory part of Road and thus, the said activity was in the nature of development of infrastructure facility as stipulated u/s 80IA(4) and therefore, the deduction u/s 80IA(4) was allowable to the assessee. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that- "a. The road signages constructed by the assessee included various directions boards, cautionary signs, informatory signs etc. and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for temporary period of 11 months. Whereas, in the assessee's own case the total concession period is of 19 years including 6 months construction period and the project cost is about Rs. 5 Crores. 7) In para 5.3.3 of the appellate order, the learned CIT(A) has stated that the decision of the Karnataka High Court is the only High Court decision rendered on the subject and reported as on date and in the absence of any contradictory decision, the ratio laid down by the Karnataka High Court has to be respected and followed. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT V. Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. dtd.22.04.2010 (ITAT No.49 of 2010, GA No.894 of2010) wherein it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2008 for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 decided on 04.06.2010. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal in assessee's case for assessment year 2010-11 are as under : "7. We find that the issue raised in the present appeal i.e. whether the erection of foot over bridges and installation of road signage fall within the definition of infrastructure facility as envisaged u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act has been considered by the Tribunal in the case of assessee's group concern M/s. Rajdeep Publicity Pvt. Ltd. The relevant extract of the order of Tribunal in the said case is reproduced here-in-under: "2. In A.Y. 2003-04, the assessee has raised various contentions with regard to its claim u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A, structure includes structures at the Ports for storage, loading, unloading etc. and only stipulation put by this circular is that the concerned authority should issue certificate that the said structures form a part of the Port and that such structures are built on BOT or BOLT Scheme and there is an agreement that the same should be transferred to the said authority on the expiry of the time stipulated in the agreement. The C.B.D.T being the competent authority for the purpose of delegation of legislation as law making power of C.B.D.T is understood, the ambit of circular should not be enlarged to include the activity into which the assessee is engaged. There cannot be any implied enlargement of subsection. The stand of the assessee that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely defines infrastructural facility in its clause (a) as road including toll road, bridge or a rail system. The assessee has constructed two foot over bridges and road signals. Most of the income of the assessee is on account of putting road signals. It does not fit into development of infrastructural facilities as defined in Explanation to Section 80IA(4). So, there cannot be any development of any road without its construction. Adding additional facility cannot be said that an infrastructural facility in the nature of road as defined in Explanation to Section 80IA(4). 5. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee did not develop any infrastructural facility in the nature of road as defined in Explanation to sub-section (4) ....