TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u/s. 139(1) on 26.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 17,20,27,320/- after claiming deduction u/s. Chapter-VIA to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/ -. Subsequently, a survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 22.02.2016. During the course of survey proceedings, it was observed and found that the assessee company is engaged in inflating its expenditure by artificially inflating the expenses by using the sub-contractors. During the course of such survey the Managing Director of the assessee company Shri Appasani Ravi Kumar admitted the discrepancies found relating to sub- contractor's payments and cash payments and made the disclosure of Rs. 5 crores for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 10 crores for AY 2016-17. Accordingly, the assessee thereafter filed a revised return on 21.12.2016 declaring gross total income of Rs. 22,30,27,320/- and after claiming deduction of Rs. 12,60,23,062 under Chapter-VIA from the above gross total income declared taxable income of Rs.9,70,04,260/ -. 3. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings asked the assessee to give complete reason for filing revised return of income and give a detailed note on claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is a works contractor and the company executes the contracts only and not a developer, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA. The AO, therefore, disallowed the claim of deduction to the tune of Rs. 12,60,23,062/- under 80IA of the Act claimed in the revised return and made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO further made addition of Rs. 2,67,611/- on account of belated payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. Thus, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 22,22,94,933/- as against the returned income of Rs. 9,70,04,260/ -. 7. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee made elaborate arguments and filed certain details based on which the ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. After considering the remand report of the AO and rejoinder of the assessee to such remand report the ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of Rs. 12,60,23,062/- by observing as under :-. 6. The Decision: The appellant filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 u/s. 139(1) on 26.09.2015 admitting an income of Rs. 17,20,27,320/ -. Subsequent to the filing of retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-IE shall not be allowed unless the assessee furnishes a return on or before due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. Nowhere in the section it was provided that unless the assessee makes a claim in its return filed under section 139(1), the said claim is allowable. The section does not speak of a claim to be made in the return filed under section 139(1). The section speaks of filing a return within the time specified under section 139(1) and nothing else. Here the assessee filed a return under section 139(1) within due date specified but no claim was made under section 80IA in such return. However, a revised return was filed under section 139(5) on 30.3.2010 claiming deduction under section 80IA at Rs. 37,27,928/ -. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IE / 80-IC / 80-ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made in the return already filed under sub- section (1) of section 139 or return filed under sub- section (1) of section 142. This revised ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble Special Bench was that the assessee had filed the return itself after the due date of filing the return and hence, the Hon'ble Special bench decided the issue against the assessee, which is not the case of the assessee before us. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had made the very same observation after interpreting the section 80AC of the Act [similar to proviso to sec. 10A(LA)} i.e. claim of section 80IA shall be allowed if return is furnished before the due date of filing the return and held that the assessee is squarely entitled for deduction u/ s. 80IA of the Act as all the conditions therein were duly fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld. DR did not refute any of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) by producing any cogent material or contrary evidence and the submissions made by the Ld. AR before us. In view of our aforesaid facts and findings and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Appeal of revenue is dismissed." The circumstance of the case is identical to the case of the appellant. The ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Income-Tax O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the 1.T.Act and has also not revised the computation of total income." From the above, it is evident that the solitary objection of the Revenue relates to allowability of claim of deduction u/ s.80IA(4) of the Act when the assessee failed to claim the same in the original return of income filed u/ s. 139 of the Act. The assessee has made claim in the revised return after computation of total income. The CIT(A) examined this issue and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/ s. Pruthvi brokers and Shareholders Put. Ltd., reported as 349 ITR 336 and allowed the appeal of the assessee as per discussion given in para 4.8 of the order of CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of Assessing Officer and argument/ conclusion made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that CIT(A) is an Appellate Authority and is justified in following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi brokers and Shareholders Put. Ltd. (supra.). He further submitted that CIT(A) has rightly ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... improper." (Jai Parabolic 306 ITR 42 (Del.) referred) In the instant case the assessee has made claim of section 80IA and filed all details with AO. The AO has examined the same and then denied it stating that the fly ash is one of the ingredients in manufacture of Pozzocrete. This view of AO is not correct. On examination of composition of Pozzocrete it is observed that fly ash is the major component. Pozzocrete is processed fly ash for eco friendly, more durable and performance improved concrete. It is obtained by processing fly ash product as a by-product at coal-fired electricity generating power stations. The word solid waste management is not defined in income tax. As per Glossary of environment statistics Solid waste management refers to the supervised handling of waste material from generation at the source through the recovery processes to disposal. In the instant case the assessee procures the fly ash from MSEB. The fly ash so procured is processed and Pozzocrete. Pozzocrete has a successful history 'Of use in concrete around the world as Pozzolanic material Therefore assessee is handling the waste material generated from coal fired electricity generating po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction u/ s 80IA of the Act is as under: "To qualify as the development work, the assessee has to develop the project right from the stage of planning to operation of the project and also maintain the project during the liability period. The assessee has to arrange men and machinery for executing the project and also arrange materials design and execute the work with its own resources. The assessee shall undertake the risk of all works executed until a completion certificate for works has been issued. The assessee has to ensure all works at sight including third party insurance to persons and damage to property. The assessee shall be liable to indemnify the principle against damage to persons and properties. On perusal of the contracts entered into by the assessee with various clients like Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, East Central Railway, GMR Chattisgarh Energy Limited, South East Central Railway etc, it is observed from terms and conditions of contract along with its scope of work indicate that the nature of works undertaken by the assessee is in the nature of developing infrastructure facility which would qualify for deduction u/ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fils all the following conditions) namely :- (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies [or by an authority or a board or a corporation or any other body established or constituted under any Central or State Act;] [(b)it has entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii} operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility;] (c) it has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st day of April, 1995: As can be seen that all the projects have commenced after 1st day of April, 1995 and as per the clause (b) reproduced above, the entity has to have an agreement with the Central Government, State Government or any other Statutory Body for the development of infrastructure. In the present case the Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd., East Central Railway(EC Railway), RAUS, South East Central Railway(SECR), RITES Limited, ROB and Office of the Executive Engineer Roads and Building Division are the bodies which are envisaged un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicant) of the OTHER PART. WHEREAS THE Applicant is desirous of having a Private siding laid by the Railway Administration at Raipur Division from Tilda station yard of the South East Central Railway taking off from 791/ 11N from' Up Loop Line of Tilda station, between Tilda station and Baikunth Station as shown in red and green on the plan bearing CE's No. {TR/R/TLD/PS/888/12(SH-1/5)ALT-1,2}, (L-SEC) hereto annexed for the purpose of carrying on the Applicant's business in the Applicant's premises situated at Village: - Raikheda: Block-Tilda, District Raipur {C.G} and WHEREAS the Railway Administration is willing to lay the said siding for the said Applicant upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 16. Lalitapur Power Generation Company Ltd NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY PRIVATE SIDING AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this 2nd Day of February, 20178etween the President of India, acting through the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Central Railway Jhansi (hereinafter called "The Railway Administration") of the one part and Lalitpur Power Generation Company Limited (hereinafter called "The Applicant") o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s shed/sidings by private investment in Railway Premises **** "As a market strategy aimed at retaining and enhancing Railway's business interest, Board have decided that rail users may be allowed to invest in the development of goods shed / sidings facilities subject to the following conditions 1. Railway will allow investment by private parties in development of goods shed / sidings. Railway would, however, reserve the right to close the goods shed / siding if the same becomes financially or operationally unsustainable at some stage by giving a notice of 90 days. 2. Railway will allow investment by private parties at stations as per Railway's operational convenience. On receipt of an application from the concerned party, the decision on the development of these facilities. will be taken personally by the General Manager of the Railway in consultation with FA & CAO. 3. Before approval of any such proposal of investment is conveyed, the railway may ensure that there is little or no likelihood of the area / land being required for any project / requirement of the Railways. 4. The facilities so created would be used not only by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, in the case of M/s Chettinad Lignite Corporation wherein the sub-contractor was in the development of Railway sidings and its operation and maintenance held that there is no need for a direct agreement in the case of Railway sidings and therefore that appellant was eligible for deduction u/ s. 80IA(4). The relevant paras 8 to 9 are as under: "8. From a reading of the aforesaid Provisos to Section 8 OIA (4), it is clear that the Legislature intended to extend the said benefit under Section 80IA of the Act to an enterprise involved in (i) developing or; (ii) operating and maintaining or; (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility. The term "infrastructure facility" has been defined in the Explanation and the same includes a toll road, a bridge or a rail system, a highway project, etc. These are, obviously, big infrastructure facilities for which the enterprise in question should enter into a contract with the Central Government or State Government or Local Authority. However, the Proviso intends to extend the benefit of the said deduction under Section 80IA of the Act even to a transferee or a contracto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 15. KSK Mahanadi Power Company Ltd. PRIVATE SIDING AGREEMENT "MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this io» day-of October 2013 BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA acting through the SOUTH EAST CENTRAL Railway Administration (herein after called « The Railway Administration) of the one part and KSK Mahanadi Power Company limited / Raigarh Champa Rail Infrastructure Limited (hereinafter called the applicant)* of the OTHER. PART. WHEREAS THE Applicant is desirous of having a Private siding laid by the Railway Administration at Akaltara from the Akaltara exchange yard of the South East Central Railway taking off from Kilometer No. 1379. a M between Akaltara Station and Alcaltara exchange yard of SOTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY as shown in red and green on the plan bearing CE's No. TR/BSP/AKT/PS/692-1/11 (SH-4/5) hereto annexed for the purpose of carrying on the Applicant's business in the Applicant's premises situated at Near Nariyara Village, Akaltara Telisil, District - Janjair Champa AND WHEREAS the Railway Administration is willing to lay the said siding for the said Applicant upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid Applicant upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, This Agreement witnesses as follows: 20,22 and 23 Nigire Project Jay Prakash Power Ventures ( The appellant has had 3 separate sites with respect to this master agreement) WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY PRIVATE SIDING AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM OP AGREEMENT made this 31st day of March 2014 BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA acting through the WEST CENTRAL Railway Administration (hereinafter called "the Railway Administration") of the one part and M/ S JAI PRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD(JPVL}, JAYPEE NIGRIESPER THERMAL POWER PROJECT NIGRIE TECH: DARAI, DIST: Singrauli (MP) WHEREAS THE applicant it desirous of having a private siding laid by the Railway Administration at ........ from the NIWAS ROAD station yard of the West Central Railway taking off from Kilometer 1256.750 between SHANKAR PURBHADORA and BHARSENDI Station of the WEST CENTRAL Railway as shown in red and green on the plan bearing CE's. No. GM/W/WCR/JBP/0523, 373 & 374 hereto annexed for the purpose of carrying on the Applicant's business in the applicant's premises stationed at NIGRIE Distr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7,641/- by the AO on account of belated payment of PF and ESI is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition if the amounts are paid before the due date filing of return of income. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal. i. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the claim of the assessee despite the assessee failing to comply with provisions u/s. 80A(5) r.w.s. 80AC and claim u/s 80IA was made only in the revised return filed in consequence to survey. ii. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) should have considered the fact that it is only on after thought to claim deduction u/s 80lA consequent to survey. " iii. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim u/s 80lA where the additional undisclosed income offered during the survey proceeding is not the income earned from the eligible business of the assessee." iv. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in allowing the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to comply with the provisions of section 80IA(5) r.w.s. 80AC. He submitted that when assessee in the original return of income filed has not claimed the deduction u/s. 80IA, therefore, the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim so made in the revised return and that to after the survey took place and assessee disclosed additional income. He submitted that had there been no survey, the assessee would not have filed the revised return of income. Referring to the order of the AO from para 7 onwards, he submitted that the AO has given elaborate reasons as to how and why the assessee is not entitled to claim the deduction u/s. 80IA made for the first time in the revised return. He accordingly submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA. 13.1 Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of PCI and another vs Wipro Ltd. reported in 446 ITR 1 (SC), he submitted that the assessee cannot claim the deduction u/s. 80IA in the revised return when such claim was not made in the original return. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, he submitted that when the assessee is a works contractor and the compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O. Therefore, once a revised return is filed and accepted, the original return is replaced by the revised return and treated as if the return has been filed u/s. 139(1). He submitted that ignoring the revised return would amount to taking back the benefit given to the assessee for which the ITAT has no power. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mcorp Global Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT reported in 309 ITR 434, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that the Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit conferred by the AO or enhance the assessment. 14.1 He submitted that the reasons for filing the revised return have been duly placed on the records of the lower authorities and the same has been accepted by them. He submitted that the assessee filed the revised return as it was not aware about the legal position during the relevant period and it was advised by the new Chartered Accountant who was approached post survey proceedings. He submitted that the claim of the deduction u/s. 80IA has got nothing to do with the survey declaration as the additional amount declared during the survey has not been taken into account fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch in the case of DCIT vs. Mackintosh Burn Ltd. for AY 2006-07 vide ITA No.790/Kol/ 2014 dated 15.03.2017 iii. ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ITO vs. Dirk India P.Ltd. for AY 2010- 11 vide ITA No.869/Pun/2016 dated 24.10.2018 iv. ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Infrastructure Ltd. for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 vide ITA Nos.3708 and 3709/ Mum/ 2018, dated 08.11.2019. v. ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd. for AY 2016-17 vide ITA No.888/Hyd/2019 dated 24.02.2021. vi. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Gears Ltd. for AY 2013-14 vide ITA No.3068/Chny/2017, dated 04.03.2022 vii. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT v. vijay Infrastructure Ltd. for AY 2009-10 reported in 402 ITR 363(All) 16. So far as the additional ground taken by the revenue challenging that the assessee cannot be allowed the deduction u/s. 80IA since the activity carried out by the assessee is that of works contractor instead of being that of a developer is concerned, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the remand report placed at page No. 228- 229 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the terms and conditions of the various agreements along with its scope has arrived at the conclusion that the assessee is the developer. Referring to various decisions, he submitted that the additional ground can only be admitted if the same is raised for good and bonafide reasons and which are on record in the assessment proceedings and in the absence of the same, it should be rejected. Since the AO in the instant case in one line has stated that the assessee is a works contractor and not a developer, therefore, the additional ground raised by the revenue should be dismissed. 19. The ld.counsel for the assessee in his another plank of argument submitted that the AO in the subsequent years has allowed the deduction u/s. 80IA. Referring to the order of the ld.CIT(A), he submitted that the ld.CIT(A) while allowing the relief has specifically given a finding that in the subsequent year i.e., AY 2017-18, the AO has allowed the deduction u/s. 80IA on the profits of the projects which were continuing since AY 2015-16. Referring to page No. 150 to152 of the paper book volume-2, he submitted that the AO in the order passed u/s. 143(3) on 29.06.2019 has allowed the claim of deduction m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. (supra) is concerned, he submitted that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted that there is a distinction between a claim for exemption and claim for deduction and both cannot be equated. Referring to the said decision, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has denied the benefit of carry forward of losses due to its failure to withdraw the deduction u/s. 10B of the I.T.Act before the date of filing its original return of income. He submitted that on a plain reading of 10B(8) of the I.T.Act, it can be seen that for claiming the benefit u/s. 10B(8), the twin condition of furnishing the declaration to the AO in writing and the same must be furnished before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the I.T.Act has to be fulfilled. The ld.counsel for the assessee filed the following written submission on the applicability of decision in case of Wipro Ltd. Applicability of the Wipro Ltd decision 19) We draw Your Honour's attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the case of PCIT v. Wipro Ltd [2022] 446 ITR 1, wherein the Supreme Court denied the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved hereinabove, for claiming the benefit u/s 10B (8) both the conditions of furnishing the declaration and to file the same before the due date of filing the original return of income are mandatory in nature." 23. The assessee's case is distinguishable from the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Wipro's case, as enunciated above. In the assessee's case, the revised return was filed to claim the deduction u/ s. 80IA of the I.T.Act and not to withdraw claim. 24. Further, the learned Assessing Officer had accepted the revised return in the Assessee's case. Therefore, once a revised return is filed, the original return is replaced by the revised return and treated as if the return is filed u/ s. 139(1). 25. In Wipro's case, it specifically filed a note claiming exemption u/ s. 10B. Further, it was a case dealing with exemption provisions and not with deduction provisions under chapter VI-A and as also highlighted by Supreme Court (page 17 at placitum 11), both operate in different fields. 21.1 So far as the two decisions relied on by the ld.CIT-DR are concerned, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that both these decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and the grounds raised by the revenue including the additional ground on the issue of deduction u/s. 80IA should be dismissed. 22. So far as the ground challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the deduction of belated payment of PF and ESI, if paid before the due date of filing of the return is concerned, he submitted that the issue now fairly stands decided against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd.(supra). 23. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. The first issue raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal no. (i) to (v) and the additional ground is regarding the allowability of deduction u/s.80IA. We find the assessee in the instant case claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) amounting to Rs. 12,60,23,062/- in the revised return of income filed u/s. 139(5). We find the AO denied the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) made by the assessee on the ground that assessee has not made the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the ld.counsel for the assessee that once a valid revised return is filed, it replaces the original return of income filed in time and therefore, it cannot be said that a) the assessee has not filed the return of income within the time i.e. within the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act or b) the claim has not been made in the return of income. 25. We find the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Shanti Gears Ltd. vide ITA No.3068/CHNY/2017, order dated 04.03.2022(supra) while holding that assessee can make a claim in the revised return has observed as under :- 8. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have noted that the provisions of Section 80IA(5) only requires filing of return of income but nowhere it states that the claim should be, made in the original return and not by way of original return. Further, when the original return was filed within the due date, then the revised return filed, thereafter, before the completion of assessment proceedings, is to be considered by the Assessing Officer, because the Act has given an opportunity to the Assessee to file his return u/s. 139( 4)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut filing return within due date specified u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961. He further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) without considering these aspects deleted additions made by the AO, on the ground that once, return has been filed u/s 139(1), then the assesee can claim deduction by filing revised return within due date specified u/ s 139(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 8. The Ld. AR for the assesse, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in number of case, where the law has been explained in light of provision of section 80AC and held that as per the provision of section 80AC filing of return within due date specified u/s 139(1) is mandatory, but there is no stipulation as to claiming deduction in the return of income, as long as, the claim is within due date specified under sub section (5) of section 139, then the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the AO towards disallowances of deduction claimed u/s 80IA and his order should be upheld. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturn was filed within due date specified u/s 139(1), then any revised return filed within the due date specified u/s 139(5) to rectify any mistakes or omissions or wrong statements made in the return already filed u/s 139(1), then the revised return takes, the nature of the original return filed within due date specified u/s 139(1) and consequently, the assessee fulfills the conditions prescribed u/s 80AC of the Act, in order to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the I.T.Act, 1961. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted additions made by the AO towards disallowances of deduction claimed u/s 80IAof the I.T.Act 1961. We do not see any reasons to interfere in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the revenue. 27. Similar view has been taken by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Percot Meridian Ltd. (supra), the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Mackintosh Burn Ltd.(supra) and the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal ITO vs. Dirk India P.ltd. (supra) which the ld.CIT(A) has already reproduced in his order and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 of the said order has also made a distinction between a claim of exemption and claim of deduction by observing as under :- "Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries Put. Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee is concerned, Section 10B (8) is an exemption provision which cannot be compared with claiming an additional depreciation under section 32(1) (ii- a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter VIA of the Act operate in different realms and principles of Chapter III, which deals with "incomes which do not form a part of total income", cannot be equated with mechanism provided for deductions in Chapter VIA, which deals with "deductions to be made in computing total income". Therefore, none of the decisions which are relied upon on behalf of the assessee on interpretation of Chapter VIA sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) which is well within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of GMR Infrastructure Ltd. (supra)is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 30. We further find the assessee filed the original return of income on 26.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.17,20,27,320 and the revised return was filed on 21.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 9,70,04,260/- after claiming the deduction u/s. 80IA amounting to Rs.12,60,23,062/ -. The AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) on 27.09.2017 on the basis of the revised return filed on 21.12.2016 and has also computed the assessed income on the basis of the revised return. Thus, a perusal of the details filed in the paper book as well as the assessment order shows that the revised return has ben accepted by the AO. We, therefore find merit in the argument of the ld.counsel for the assessee that once a revised return is filed and is accepted, the original return is replaced by the revised return and treated as if the return is filed u/s. 139(1). Ignoring the revised return would amount to taking back the benefit given to the assessee for which the Tribunal has no power. We find th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own resources. The assessee shall undertake the risk of all works executed until a completion certificate for. works has been issued. The assessee has to ensure all works at sight including third party insurance to persons and damage to property. The assessee shall be liable to indemnify the principle against damage to persons and properties. On perusal of the contracts entered into by the assessee with various clients like Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, East Central Railway, GMR Chattisgarh Energy Limited, South East Central Railway etc, it is observed from terms and conditions of contract along with \ its scope of work indicate that the nature of works undertaken by the assessee is in the nature of developing infrastructure facility which would qualify for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. (emphasis supplied by us) However, on the contrary, as seen from the TDS details, it seems to be that the assessee is a subcontractor handling the works on contractual agreement and it is known that deduction u/s 80IA is not eligible for contractors. Therefore, the assessee has tiled revised return and claimed deduction» u/s 80IA as an afterthought. It is confirmed from the u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....activity carried on by the assessee. Since the AO after analyzing the details of the terms and conditions of the various agreements along with its scope has arrived at the conclusion in the remand report that the assessee is a developer and further considering the fact that in subsequent years the AO himself has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) which has been pointed out by the ld.CIT(A) in the body of the order which the ld. CIT-DR could not controvert, therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument of the ld.CIT-DR that ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4). Since the ld.CIT(A) in the instant case after thorough analysis has held that the activities performed by the assessee is that of the developer and not merely that of a contractor and since the AO in the remand report itself has categorically held that the assessee is a developer and since the AO in the subsequent years has allowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in respect of the projects which were continuing for the impugned assessment year, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of the detailed reasonings given by the ld.CIT(A) whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e business of the assessee." iv. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in allowing the claim of Rs. 22,11,24,388/- u/s 80IA as against the income offered of only 10,00,00,000/- in Survey which is nothing but undisclosed income as confirmed by the AR of the assessee." v. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in not taking into account the Auditors report in Form 10CCB dt. 21.12.2016, prepared after survey, wherein the Chartered Accountant certified the eligible deduction u/s 80IA(4) at Rs.50,77,180/- after taking into account the gross sales of Rs. 452,93,89,653/-" vi. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is correct in not appreciating that there is no amendment to Sec.36(1)(va) and considering the as it stands, the employee's contribution is taxable as read with Sec.24(2)(x) to the extent it is not paid within due date as also held in the decision of Gujarat High Court in the CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (3661TR 170) wherein the decision of Apex court in the case of Alom Extrusions was distinguished. (185 Taxmann 416). vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h III) Project: Il-Apr-2013 21,13,08,567 1,24,67,226 17,18,310 6 E C Railway - Jharkhand (Reach IV) Project: 21-May-2013 21,13,08,567 3,84,40,245 42,14,768 7 EC Railway-Jharkhand (Reach V) Project: 21-May-2013 23,18,61,936 8,55,38,901 89,28,398 8 Marwa- RITES LIMITED 26-Jul-2013 44,82,63,017 7,34,47,831 71,92,557 9 SECR - Bilaspur (JV) Project: 18-Jun-2014 43,55,15,616 1,04,05,222 10,95,917 10 Sami Project :- RITES LTD 8-Feb-2011 22,22,67,360 89,36,412 14,15,724 11 ROB Yerrupalem Project: Head Office 3-Mar-2010 11,94,05,593 23,59,586 32,586 12 RVNL- Bilaspur 26-Dec-2014 1,65,96,17,021 13 Guntur Project:RVNL 15-Oct-2014 1,14,00,00,000 7,71,67,69,950 1,09,46,12,505 7,54,50,444 14 GMR - Chhathisgar Energy Limited 24-Sep-2011 1,61,06,51,486 23,21,70,025 1,82,18,565 15 KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited 27-Dec-2010 92,57,42,781 10,80,68,437 97,02,199 16 Lalithpur Power Generation company Limited 6-Jun-2014 1,56,00,03,432 10,96,19,027 72,82,564 17 Hindalco - Mahan Alluminium Siding at Bragwan 12-May-2011 1,12,59,40,263 53,27,663 36,55,339 18 Prayagraj Project: - Jai Prakash and Associates 18-Apr-2012 71,01,00,173 5,02,55,656 40,40,316 19 Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 37,705 1,059 E C Railway Jharkhand (Reach 1) Project: E C Railway - Jharkhand (Reach III) Project: E C Railway - Jharkhand (Reach IV) Project: watcen Private Limited (Part IX) A.Y. 2015-16 watcen Private Limited (Part IX) A.Y. 2015-16 Marwa- RITES 44,82,63,017 LIMITED 65,28,953 5,43,520 Same as SI.No. 8 of A.Y. 2015-16 2 O 2,44,39,88,138 17,09,19,058 KSK Mahanadi Power Company Limited 92,57,42,781 20 Lalithpur Power Generation company Limited 1,56,00,03,432 17,77,29,713 1,46,15,653 Same as SI.No. 16 of A.Y. 2015-16 21 Prayagraj Project: - Jai Prakash and Associates 71,01,00,173 9,32,25,697 75,50,123 Same as SI.No. 18 of A.Y. 2015-16 22 GMR - Chhathisgar Energy Limited 1,61,06,51,486 2,61,09,155 16,86,633 Same as SI.No. 14 of A.Y. 2015-16 23 NTPC Lara 1,19,54,70,749 29,85,22,268 2,47,59,090 TOTAL ... 59,55,86,833 4,86,11,500 GRAND TOTAL 3,03,95,74,971 21,95,30,558 Lalithpur Power Generation company Limited Document 2 TRACKS AND TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED Details of projects not continued till FY 2016-17 - corresponding similar works executed during the financial year 2016-17 and allowed in Assessment for AY 201....