AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1392
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on the following grounds: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80IA(4)(i) without considering the findings made by the AO and thereby deleting the disallowance made by the AO for Rs. 8,26,94,832/-. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in the assessment for accrued interest of Rs. 35-,91,389/- on the sum deposited in the Treasury Account of the State Government when the assessee did not produce any agreement with the State Government which implies that the assessee comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he business referred in sub-section (4) of section 80IA of the Act. We note that the assessee has no income from the activities of infrastructure development as contemplated in sub-section (4) which is pre-requisite qualification u/s 80IA of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the submission vide dated 14.03.2017 that the assessee being involved in development, operation and maintenance of infrastructural facilities and its income was earned almost entirely from such business activities i.e. development, operation and maintenance of infrastructural facilities is contrary to record i.e. P&L A/c. Therefore, as rightly found by the AO that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act as confirmed by the CIT(A) in his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended to clause (i) of sub section (4) of section 80IA of the Act. No such material evidence brought before us to substantiate the claim of assessee that the New Town project in an integral part of highway project. As discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, the assessee failed to substantiate its claim before the two lower authorities. It is noted from the record that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 02.12.2015 remanded the matter to the file of AO to examine all the requirements for allowing the aforesaid deduction with a direction to the assessee to provide all the details to substantiate its claim for the deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the Ld.DR that there were no such detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceedings the assessee produced copy of a letter of the Directorate of Treasury and Accounts, Government of West Bengal dated 14.06.2016, where it was clarified that no interest is payable on deposits in Local Fund Account bearing no. 8448. 5. The ld. DR submits that this letter requires verification and that from the letter issued by the Joint Director, DTA, West Bengal dated 14.06.2016 it is not clear as to whether any interest is payable by them or not. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relies on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submits that the correspondence between the Government and Government Undertaking has to be believed and the Assessing Officer ('AO' for short) cannot merely say that original copies were not produced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity deleted this addition by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315. He held that a nexus exists between the interest income earned and the cost of the project and hence the interest income should be treated as a capital receipt, which will reduce the cost of the project. He did not follow the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that he had raised additional grounds on similar issue for the assessment year 2014-15, 2015-16 wherein he submitted that, interest income in question from F.Ds has already been offered to tax and hence, dis....