TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and deserves to be quashed and may kindly be quashed. 3. The Ld.Pr.CIT erred on facts as also in law in holding that the appellant firm is contractor and not developers and merely executing the civil construction work as a sub-contractor on behalf of Government of Gujarat is not entitled to claim deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act and thereby setting aside the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 16.09.2013. The order passed by the Id. CIT is totally unjustified on facts as also in law therefore the same may kindly be quashed. 4. The Id. Pr CIT further erred on facts in not properly considering the facts on record and appellant's submission that all the details were furnished during assessment proceedings and were verified by the AO and the order under consideration was passed after due inquiry, verification of facts on record and due application of mind. Thus, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be quashed. 5. Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal. 3. The only issue raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4th February 2016. 4.5 The assessee in response to such notice vide letter dated 23rd February 2016 and 2nd March 2016 submitted that the contract for the construction of the bridge has been allotted to it in an e-tender after qualifying the technical and financial criteria laid down therein. The assessee for this purpose entered into the agreement dated 12th June 2009 with the Government. Furthermore, it had carried out all the activities of the project which was allotted as package and not for the execution of a particular work only. The activities involved in the development project include many segments such as levelling of earth, clearing and grubbing of road land, grass, trees, earth work for embankment with selected soil breaking clods etc. It has issued all the RA bills which were duly approved by the engineers appointed by the government and which were further handed over to the Government. Accordingly, the assessee contended that it has fulfilled all the conditions as specified under section 80IA(4) of the Act and therefore it is eligible for deduction as specified under said section. 4.6 It was also contended by the assessee that the AO has allowed the claim of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the contract was awarded to the joint-venture and therefore the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Act. For this proposition, the learned AR relied on the order of Rajkot Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Patel Highway Management Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 135/RJT/2016 for A.Y 2011-12 dated 02/08/2017. 7. On the contrary the learned DR submitted that there is no discussion in the order of the AO about the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IA (4) of the Act. Moreover, the contract was awarded in the name of AIPL and thereafter the joint-venture agreement was made. Furthermore, the issue whether joint-venture is eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act has not been examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore no view has been taken up by the AO in the assessment proceedings. The learned DR vehemently supported the order of the learned principal CIT. 7.1 The learned AR in his rejoinder contended that it is not necessary for the AO to discuss the issue in the assessment order with respect to the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IA(4) of the Act once he ( the AO) was satisfied after necess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was brought to the notice to the learned principal CIT during the proceedings by the assessee. The relevant contention of the assessee before the learned principal CIT reads as under: It is pertinent to note that initially the letter of contract was issued in the name of Lead Partner of joint venture i.e Avadh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the concerned Govt. Department vide their letter dated 27th August 2009, clarified that the contract shall be considered as issued in the name of "Avadh NIPL(JV)" only and reference to Avadh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Should be considered as meant for Avadh NIPL(JV) only. 8.3 However, we note that the learned Principal CIT in his order has not assailed the contention raised by the assessee before him. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, there is no violation by the assessee of the provisions specified under section 80IA(4) of the Act to the extent as discussed above. 8.4 Moving further, we find that there was no charge of the learned Principal CIT suggesting that the activities performed by the assessee were in the nature of works contract except the allegation that there was no agreement between the assessee and t....