AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Assessee : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Hiten Thakkar, A/Rs For the Revenue : Shri Kishor Dule, CIT D/R ORDER PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: The captioned cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are preferred against the very same order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated 15/09/2022 pertaining to AY 2017-18 & 2018-19. Both the appeals and cross-objections were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. Since the underlying facts in the issues are identical in the captioned appeals and cross objections, the representatives were heard on the facts of AY 2017-18. 3. We first address to the appeals by the assessee which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Local Authority or (d) Statutory Authority and LMRCL does not fit in any of the four categories. 6. The assessee filed detailed reply justifying its claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act which did not find any favour with the AO who denied the claim of deduction. The denial was confirmed by the ld. First Appellate Authority. 7. A perusal of the contract agreement shows that LMRCL has agreed to hire the contractor which is the assessee. On perusal of the above related documents we find that the metro rail, as per the contract is conceived by LMRCL who undertook the groundwork of taking necessary approvals/sanctions from the State government/local authorities and floated the tender which was successfully awarded to the assessee. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Private Limited [2018] 408 ITR 274, which has been heavily relied upon by the ld. Counsel in as much as in that case, the assessee entered into an agreement for road development project with GSRDC and GSRDC was treated as a statutory body since it was a government agency as defined u/s 2(e) of Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999 whereas LMRCL, is a body corporate, though the Central Government and State Government are the major shareholders. 8. The assessee may have constructed the Metrorail project as per the contract awarded to it but certainly it is not carrying on the business of developing and operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructural facility which fulfils the condition for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interpretation should not be so liberal as to defeat the very purpose of the Act. 10.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/s. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2007] which has been relied upon by the AO, has held as under:- "19. The well settled principle is that when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give full effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense....... 20. In applying rule of plain meaning any hardship and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utory Authority as LMRCL, does not fit in any of them. It can be seen from the record that LMRCL was incorporated on 25/11/2013 under the Companies' Act, 1956 as a special purpose vehicle between the Central and State Government with equity share of 50:50, therefore, in our understanding of the law it cannot be regarded as Central Government or State Government, nor does it fall under the definition of local authority statutory authority. It is trite law that for claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, all conditions have to be fulfilled cumulatively. 12. Considering the peculiar facts of the case in hand from all possible angles we do not find any merit in the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and the lower authorities have not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erformance of the work. Though the AO has mentioned that the assessee has not been able to give concrete proof of services actually rendered by the two persons who had visited LMRCL site and has not provided any evidence that the services where actually provided by GLM apart from the work order whereas facts on record show that the assessee has paid fees for the following services:- "* Selection of suitable technical staff for the Project; * Review of contractual documents; * Review of design and engineering; * Preparation and review of method statements for works; * Preparation and review of method statements for safety; * Preparation and review of method statements for quality manageme....