TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing grounds :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in up-holding the additions made in assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act even in absence of any incriminating documents. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not allowing additional claim of deduction of Rs. 35,80,390/- u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as lodged during the course of appellant proceedings in respect of income earned from work done as a member on behalf of its Joint Ventures, M/s Balaji ARSS (JV) and SBEPL-GRIL(JV) even when the appellant was eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of profit earned from work undertaken by the appellant as a member of the consortium in respect of the projects undertaken by the joint ventures/consortiums 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in maintaining the disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 47,15,405/- under section 80IAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submission made before him. 4. The appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5. During the course of hearing, the assessee has withdrawn the ground No.1. Thus, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Ground No.2 is relating to the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act at Rs. 35,80,590/- which was firstly claimed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). It was the claim of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that it has earned profits on the infrastructure facilities developed by it as a constituent of two Joint Ventures (JVs), namely M/s Balaji ARSS (JV) and SBEPL-GRIL (JV). The assessee claimed that since it has exclusively carried out the execution work of developing the infrastructure facility, therefore, it is eligible for the deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on such profits. In support of the same, the necessary audit report along with relevant documents were filed before the ld. CIT(A), who has not allowed such claim of the assessee by holding that the assessee is not the enterprises as defined u/s.80IA(4) of the Act for claiming the deduction. Against such action of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that during the year under appeal, the assessee has entered into two separate Joint Ven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 35,80,390/- u/s 80IA of the Act as lodged during the course of appellate proceedings in respect of income earned from work done as a member on behalf of its Joint Ventures, M/s Balaji ARSS (JV) and SBEPL-GRIL (JV). 3.2.1] The appellant entered into two joint ventures for carrying out eligible infrastructural projects as per section 80IA of the Act. Detail of such joint ventures entered into by the appellant is as under: S. No Name of the JVs Name and shares of the members Profit earned by the appellant from the said project [in Rs.] 1 M/s Balaji ARSS (JV) 1. M/s Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd. (Presently known as M/s Shree Balaji Engicons Limited) - 70% 2. M/s ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited -30% 2,02,535 Nature of work to be undertaken - Construction of ROB at km 530.269 RCC T-beam Girder and other allied works in connection with setting up Alumina smelter plant at Lapanga Station (Deposit work) (Two Packet System) awarded by East Coast Railway Construction Organisation 2 M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JV| 1. M/ s Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd. (Presently known as M/s Shree Balaji Engicons Limited) - 70% 2. M/s G R Infraprojects Limited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the appellant to M/s Balaji-ARSS (JV) COPY of audit report in Form No. 10CCB issued by independent chartered 542-543 1.6 accountant in respect of work done by the appellant eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act 544-548 1.7 Copy of Profit and Loss account for the year ended 31^st March, 2011 in respect of income earned and expenses incurred by the appellant for work done on behalf of the joint-venture, M/s Balaji-ARSS (JV) 549 Copy of acknowledgement of income-tax return alone with computation of income of M/s Balaji-ARSS (JV) as filed under section 139 of the Income-Tax 1.8 Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein deduction under section 80IA of the Act was claimed along with copy of audited final accounts of M/s Balaji-ARSS (JV) for the year ended 31st March 2013 550-556 2 Documents related to M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JV): 2.1 Copy of audited final accounts for the year ended 31^st March, 2011 557-562 2.2 Agreement with Executive Engineer, N.H Division. Jharsuguda for widening and strengthening of existing single/ intermediate lane with geomet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l in the category of Association of Persons" (AOP) under the Act. 3.3.2 Further, in our country, the implementation of infrastructure projects is taking place on massive scale. In this connection, global tenders Invited. Hence, two or more business enterprises join hands by forming a consortium of Joint Venture in order to get qualified for participating in tender process. Once the project or contract is awarded to the joint venture or the consortium, it is executed by its constituents or the joint ventures in a ratio agreed upon by the parties For all practical purposes, it is the constituents/ members of the joint venture who execute the project awarded to the joint venture 3.4] In the facts of the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant entered into Joint ventures with other parties with the sole purpose of fulfilling the eligibility criteria for obtaining the contract from Government bodies. Further, it is also an uncontroverted fact that constituents of the joint venture Le, appellant and the other party, actually executed the project awarded to the joint venture and that they were solely responsible for the performance of its scope of work ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ire work was carried out by PNC Construction Company, the assessee. The Id. Authorised Representative referred various pages of Paper Book i.e.. 97, 98, 61 & 100, page no.6 of Assessment Order and submitted that M/s. PNC Construction Co. Ltd., the assessee, was solely responsible for execution of the work and liable to M.P. Government. The Id. Authorised Representative submitted that in such circumstances, claim under section 80IA(4) is allowable. The Id. Authorised Representative in support of his contention relied upon following decisions:- (i) ACIT v. JSR Constructions (P.) Ltd. (IT Appeal No.898/Bang/2009 order dated 29.03.2011). (ii) Dy. CIT v. Transstroy (India) Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 325 & 326/Viz/2011 order dated 13.04.2012). 22. The objection of the CIT(A) in allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of Sagar-Beena Project is that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions laid down under section 80IA(4)(b) of the Act. The objection of the CIT(A) is that there is nothing to suggest on record that the assessee had entered into any agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....companies. The CIT(A) has considered only clause 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act without considering section 80IA(4)(i)(a) of the Act. If we read both the clauses of sub-section (4)(i)(a) and (b), we find that the project agreement was with the Madhya Pradesh Government and it was owned by consortium of companies registered in India i.e., NCC- PNC. Thus, in the light of above discussions and in view of the decisions of the I.T.A.T. in the case of JSR Constructions (P) Ltd (supra) and Transstroy (India) Ltd.(supra) we find that the asses has satisfied the conditions laid down in section 80IA(4)(i)(a)(b)of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of Sagar Beena Project." (Emphasis supplied 3.5.2] The Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench 'A' in the case of the ACIT v. M/s JSR Constructions (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 898/Bang/2009] has held that: "3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, engaged in the business of civil engineering works and construction of national highways. filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring NIL income and claiming deduction of Rs. 2,25,13,170....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mean that in order to avail the deduction, the assessee need to enter into new agreement every year as infrastructure projects by their very nature, generally have implementation cycles that are longer than a year. Thus, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow deduction as claimed by the assessee. 10. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions, we find that the deduction u/s 80IA is available in respect of profit and gains from the industrial undertaking or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development etc. The only reason for the disallowance by the AO is that the assessee has undertaken the sub-contract works and has also not undertaken the new contracts during the relevant asst. year. We find that the assessee has filed sufficient evidence before the CIT(A) to prove his case that it is party to the consortium, which was engaged in the business of civil construction and was also awarded the contract by the NHAI. It was also proved that the assessee has invested the entire capital for completion of the contract and so it was entitled to receive the entire contract receipts. In such a case, we are satisfied that the assessee has itself carrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment to the joint venture and in case of a consortium it was agreed that the entire work is to be executed by the assessee itself. Therefore for all practical purposes, it was the assessee who executed the work contract or the project awarded to the joint venture. No doubt the joint venture is an independent identity and has filed its return of income and was also assessed to tax but it did not offer any profit or income earned on this project/works awarded to it nor did he claim any exemption/deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. These facts clearly indicates that the joint Venture was only a de jure contractor but in fact the assessee was a de facto contractor. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the nature of business or the activities undertaken by the assessees. The dispute is only with regard to the identity of a person to whom this benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4) can be allowed. We have carefully perused the provisions of section 80IA(4) and we find that the benefit of exemption/ deduction is to be allowed to any enterprise carrying on business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating, maintaining any infrastructure facility subject t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsortium, the joint venture and consortium in turn raised the further bill of the same amount to the Government. Whatever payment was received by the joint venture, it was accordingly transferred to their constituents. Therefore, the joint venture or the consortium was only a paper entity and has not executed in contract itself. They have also not offered any income out of the work executed by its constituents, nor did they claim any deductions u/s 80IA(4). Therefore, in all practical purposes, the contract was awarded to the constituents of the joint ventures through joint venture and the work was executed by them. As per provisions of section 80IA(4), the benefit of deduction under this section is to be given only to the enterprise who carried on the classified business. Therefore, in the light of this legal proposition, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled for the deductions u/s. 80IA(4) on the profit earned from the execution of the work awarded to JV and consortium. We accordingly set aside the order of the CITA) and direct the A.O to allow the deductions. Emphasis Supplied 3.5.4) The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench cited supra has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated that in the present case in hand, both the JV's have shown profit and has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 and has due to ignorance has claimed under section 80IA of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 and therefore, the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Transstory India Ltd vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Guntur is not applicable and has concluded that the members are merely work contractors and net developers and were not eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect of income/profit earned from work done as a member on behalf of its joint ventures, M/s Balaji ARBS (JV) and BBEFL-GRIL (JV). 3.7.2) With due respect, it is being highlighted that the Lat CITIA) has wrongly interpreted the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of Transstory India Adv. ITO. Ward-2 Guntur reported in (2012) 134 ITD 269 (Visakhapatnam) in the said case, 100% of the work of consortium was executed by the appellant and therefore, there was no question of claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act by the Joint Venture. The Hon'ble ITAT Vishakhapatnam Bench has rightly concluded that as per sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... precedents cited by the AR are not applicable to the present case. Accordingly, additional claim of deduction of Rs. 35,80,390/- u/s 80- IA of the Act in respect of the Joint ventures-M/s Balaji ARSS (JV) and (1) SBEPL-GRIL (JV) is denied." 3.7.5) In this regard, with due respect, it is again being highlighted that the Ld CITIA) has utterly failed to understand the relationship between the members of the JV and the JV. In a Joint Venture, each member of JV stands in the relation of principal, as well as agent, as to each of the other members with the general scope of the Enterprises. By way of joint venture agreements, the members of the JV have regulated the relationship entered with respect to their joint responsibility that existed in relation to the member. The Joint Venture is formed for execution of specific work by the members of the JV only. Henceforth, the members of the JV cannot be termed as sub-contractors to JV in respect of work executed by them for and behalf of JV. 3.7.6) It is also utterly important to highlight the relevant clauses of Joint Venture Agreement/ Joint Bidding Agreement as formed between the members of the joint ventures, M/s Balaji....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... each member of JV stands in the relation of principal, as well as agent, as to each of the other members with the general scope of the Enterprise. * Joint Bidding Agreement between Shree Balaii Engicons Private Limited, the appellant and G R Infrastructure Limited for formation of JV - SBEPL - GRIL f J.V1 [Page No. 744-748] * Clause No. 3 and 4: The actual distribution of work is as follows :- SBEPL 70% GRIL 30% It is agreed that both the Partners of JV will participate, contribute and share the profit or loss in the following ratio. SBEPL 70% GRIL 30% On perusal of the above, it is evident that Shree Balaji Engicons Private Limited, the appellant will perform 70% of the work assigned to JV and G R Infrastructure Limited will perform 30% of the work assigned to the JV. Henceforth, it is evident that the agreement itself mentioned that the actual amount of work will be performed by JV only for which the JV was formed. * Clause No. 12: ------------------- 12. It is agreed that both the partners will work together for the mutual benefit of the JV and each partner agrees to indemni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscuss about the status and legal position of "Joint Venture vis-a-vis Income-tax Act The Joint Ventures are not be governed by the provisions of the "Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is also a known fact that there is no statute which governs a Joint Venture. Hence the issue regarding the relationship between the members and also between the members and the Joint venture has to be decided on the basis of the terms of agreement entered between the parties. Though the Joint Venture Agreements generally fall in the category of "Association of Persons" (AOP) under the Income-tax Act, yet their assessability in the status of "AOP" was not free from doubt and we notice that the authorities have decided this issue on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made a detailed discussion on the Concept of Joint Venture the case of Faqir Chand Gulati u. Uppal Agencies Private Ltd. (2008) 10 SCC 345. The relevant observations are extracted below:- 17. This Court had occasion to consider the nature of joint venture in New Horizons Ltd v. Union of India (1995 (1) SCC 478). This Court held The expression joint venture is more freque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... joint venture, very little law being found applicable to one that does not apply to the other. Thus, the liability for torts of parties to a joint venture agreement is governed by the law applicable to partnerships. A joint venture is to be distinguished from a relationship of independent contractor, the latter being one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do work according to his own methods and without being subject to the control of his employer except as to the result of the work, while a joint venture is a special combination of two or more persons where, in some specific venture, a profit is jointly sought without any actual partnership or corporate designation. (Emphasis supplied) To the same effect is the definition in Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 48A pages 314-315): "Joint venture, a term used interchangeably and synonymous with joint adventure', or coventure, has been defined as a special combination of two or more persons wherein some specific venture for profit is jointly sought without any actual partnership or corporate designation, or as an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2) sharing of expenses, profits and losses, and having and exercising some voice in determining division of net earnings; (3) community of control over. and active participation in management and direction of business enterprise; (4) intention of parties, express or implied, and (5) fixing of salaries by joint agreement. 12. Thus, on an understanding of the concept of the Joint Venture and the terms of agreement between the members of the present case, we are of the view that in the instant case, the consortium of Joint Venture has been formed only to procure the contract works. By way of the agreement, the parties have only regulated the relationship inter with respect to their joint responsibility that existed in relation to the Principal. viz., M/s Konkan Railway In reality, both the parties have divided the contract works between themselves and they have executed their share of work on their own risks. It is pertinent to note here that the AO has not given any finding on the issues like that each member had authority to interfere with or control the work executed by the other member, that both the members have jointly executed the project and thus produced the income j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in addition to a formal agreement, it is necessary to show that the parties have acted in such a manner conducive to uphold a contractor-subcontractor relationship when there is a strong case of interlacing of finance and funds, interdependence of responsibilities, interconnection of activities. It is very difficult to come to a conclusion that the assessee were acting in the status of contractors vis-a-vis sub-contractors. A more rational finding would be that the parties were executing the contracts through joint effort, as a group of partners. 17. Defacto speaking, when there is no basis for coming to a conclusion that there existed a relationship of contractor vis-a-vis sub-contractor, it is useful to look into the principle embodies in section 20 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872. This section provides that where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact, essentially to the agreement, the agreement is void. In the present case, the question is mainly focussed on the contractual relationship of the assessee and its partners. This principle embodies in the section 20 of the Indian Contract Act has great relevance. It turns out that the for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Ramky ECI JV v. ITO (TDS) reported in [2024] 158 taxmann.com 167 (Kolkata Trib) has held that: "7.3 Based on the above detailed discussion, the Co-ordinate Bench arrived at a conclusion that consortium of JV has been formed only to procure the contract works. By way of the agreement, the parties have regulated the relationship entered with respect to their joint responsibility that existed in relation to the member. In reality, both the parties have divided the contract work between themselves and have executed their share of work on their own risk. It was thus concluded that there is no merit in the presumption made by the AO that the JV is the main contractor and the constituents are the subcontractors. Accordingly, it held that question of deduction of tax at source u/s. 194C(2) does not arise. It was thus concluded that assessee JV was not liable to deduct tax at source and, therefore, it cannot be held to be in default u/s. 201(1) and liable to be charged interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act." 3.9) in the view of the findings as laid down in the above judicial precedents, it is evident that in a Joint venture agreement, there sub-contract between JV and the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia) Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guntur reported in [2012] 134 ITD 269 (Visakhapatnam) * DCIT, Central Circle-2, Hyd. vs. Megha Engg. & Infrastructure Ltd. (ITA No. 607, 608, 609 & 610/H/2016/ 3.12) In view of the above discussion, the Hon'ble Bench is kindly requested to allow the further deduction of Rs. 35,80,390/- u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of income/ profit earned from work done as a member on behalf of its joint ventures, M/s Balaji ARSS (JV) and SBEPL-GRIL (JV) and oblige. 8. In view of the above submissions, ld. AR vehemently argued that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the works executed by it for and on behalf of the joint venture as lead constituent. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the additional claim to the assessee of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profit earned from the works executed by it as one of the lead partner to the joint venture. Ld. CIT-DR submitted that in Section 80IA(4) of the Act, there is express provision for allowability of deduction that it is available only to the enterprises which had entered into the agreement with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the amount of final bill raised by the Joint ventures after reducing the cost of bills received from respective members and in the book of members profit was calculated in respect of work executed as member of that joint ventures. On the amount of profit as earned by the respective members in respect of work executed for Joint ventures. Audit Reports in Form 10CCB stipulated u/s 80IA(7) of the Act was also filed by the appellant during appellate proceedings. The appellant also relied on the decision of Vizag Bench of ITAT in the case of Transstory (India) Ltd Vs ITO (134 ITD 269). 6.7 It is seen that the assessee has incorporated two Joint Ventures - (i) M/s Balaji- ARSS (JV) and (ii) M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JV) and executed the work given to the said Joint Ventures. In the submissions made by the appellant it is evident that the said JVs filed their Income Tax Return and claimed deduction u/s 80- IA of the Act from AY 2013-14 onward. The relevant extracts of the submission is given below: S. No Brief description of documents 1 Documents related to M/s Balaji-ARSS (JV) 1.1 Copy of audited final accounts for the year ended 31 March, 2011 1.2 Agree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Transstory (India) Ltd Vs ITO (134 ITD 269) in support of its claim. The relevant portion of the said judgement is given below: "8. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record, we find that undisputedly the joint venture or the consortium was formed only to obtain the contract from the Government bodies. At the time of execution of the joint venture or the consortium, it has been made clear that work/project awarded to the joint venture would be executed by the joint ventures or the constituents. As per mutually agreed terms and conditions between them, it was also agreed that each party shall be responsible for the provisions of without limitation on resources required for the purpose of fulfilment of the scope and also solely responsible for the performance of its scope of work and shall hear all technical. Commercial and facing risk involved in performing its scope of work. It was also agreed that none of the party shall assign its rights and obligations to any other party without written consent of other party. From a careful perusal of this joint ven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee u/s 80IA was allowed by your good office in the order dated 31-05-2023. A copy of such order is attached herein for your ready verification. It may also be noted such claim u/s 80IA by the SBEPL-GRIL JV was allowed by the jurisdictional ITAT in Appeal before [ITA 195/CTK/2019] for AY 2014-15. A copy of such order is already in your good office's records. 6.9 As per the AR, due to ignorance the profit relating to JVs were not claimed during the AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 even if the said JVs were entitled to deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Further, jurisdictional ITAT in Appeal No. ITA 195/CTK/2019 decreed that the said JVs were entitled to deduction u/s 80IA being the "developer of an infrastructure facility in their individual capacity. Hence, it is apparent that the JVs were the "developer" and work executed by the members were mere work contractors. As the JVs were unable to claim deduction u/s 80IA due to ignorance for the impugned assessment year, AR harps on the points that the profit attributable to the portion of the work executed by the members that were executed/sub-contracted by JVs are entitled to get Deduction U/s 80IA of the Act. Considering the submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veloping, 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: Provided that where an infrastructure facility is transferred on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 by an enterprise which developed such infrastructure facility (hereafter referred to in this section as the transferor enterprise) to another enterprise (hereafter in this section referred to as the transferee enterprise) for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Central Government, State Government, local authority or statutory body, the provisions of this section shall apply to the transferee enterprise as if it were the enterprise to which this clause applies and the deduction from profits and gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place. Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, "infrastructure facility" means- (a) a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wer at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1993 and ending on the 31st day of March, ^80[2017]; (b) starts transmission or distribution by laying a network of new transmission or distribution lines at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1999 and ending on the 31st day of March, ^80[2017]: Provided that the deduction under this section to an undertaking under sub-clause (b) shall be allowed only in relation to the profits derived from laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution; (c) undertakes substantial renovation and modernisation of the existing network of transmission or distribution lines at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2004 and ending on the 31st day of March, ^80[2017]. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-clause, "substantial renovation and modernisation" means an increase in the plant and machinery in the network of transmission or distribution lines by at least fifty per cent of the book value of such plant and machinery as on the 1st day of April, 2004; (v) an undertaking owned by an Indian company and set up for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re work on the basis of the joint venture agreement according to which the assessee is the lead partner. On a conjoint reading of the provisions as contained in Section 80IA(4)(i) with 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the Act, it is clear that the enterprises could be a consortium of the companies. In the present case, as discussed above, the joint ventures are the enterprises created in terms of joint venture agreement where certain companies including assessee are constituents of such joint venture agreement, therefore, claiming that such joint venture is represented by its constituent for execution of the work and is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act, is farfetched argument which cannot be accepted. 15. Now, coming to the joint venture agreement, in terms of the joint venture agreement of M/s Balaji ARSS JV, para 4 reads as under :- 16. From the perusal of the clause 4, it is clear that as per the joint venture agreement, both the constituents of M/s Balaji ARSS-JV had defined their scope of responsibility as well as scope of the work to be executed and also clearly defined their share in the profit/loss. Therefore, they simply at the most could be treated as the partners to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and it executed the entire work for and on behalf of the joint venture firm which was solely created only for the purpose of participating in the bid process and thereafter the entire activities of such contract was carried out by M/s PNC Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court opined that the company has fulfilled all the conditions as provided u/s.80IA(4) of the Act for claiming deduction. However, in the instant case, from the chart of the receipts as reproduced in para 10 above, it is clear that during the year under appeal out of the total receipts of Rs. 17.51 crores received by both the joint ventures entities, the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 9.06 crores only and the remaining amount was received by other constituent of the joint ventures. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee is sole executants of the project undertaken by the respective joint ventures. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that both the joint venture have also claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on the profits from such projects, therefore, there cannot be two beneficiaries of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act on one project i.e. first deduction is claimed by the joint ventur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into a specific Joint Venture Agreement wherein the terms and conditions of their revenue/ profit sharing, their individual scope of work, risks and responsibilities etc. are decided. The JV than applied for all the registrations like PAN, TDS etc. and become a separate legal entity. Based on such JV Agreement, both the parties have executed the work awarded to them by the JV entity and share the receipts according to their contribution in the execution which has already been tabulated in the para 10 above. The bills were raised by both the constituents to the JV at the price agreed between them and JV's and in turn JV's has raised the bills to the principal at the rate awarded in the tender. The principal has made the payment to the JV after making TDS and then payments were released to both the constituents according to their bills. Thereafter the returns of income were filed by the assessee wherein no deduction u/s 80IA(4) was claimed on such work. However, the JV's from AY 2013- 14 has stared claiming the deduction u/s 80IA on the same project as developer and was allowed to them which is an undisputed fact. Thereafter even knowing the fact that both the JV's has claimed deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the return of income filed and after the expiry of few years, claim was made before the CIT(A) through additional ground of appeal and filed the relevant reports. Here it is relevant to note that in the audit repot u/s 44AB filed alongwith the return of income nowhere it was observed by the auditors that separate books of account were maintained for all the eligible projects related to JV's thus it is not sure whether there were separate books of accounts available to deduce the true and correct profits eligible for deduction u/s 80IA on these projects. Assessee also failed to file the Balance Sheets of these projects and only P&L accounts were filed alongwith the report in Form 10CCAC required to claim deduction u/s 80IA. Thus assessee has also failed to comply full conditions for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 24. It is also a relevant factor that on a single project, deduction u/s 80IA has been claimed twice, firstly by both the JV's claiming themselves as the developer and secondly by one of the constituents who executed part work by claiming itself as the developer. To our understanding deduction u/s 80IA is available to one entity only in one project that too to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & 194/CTK/2019, the assessee's main argument was that though the work was executed by the constituents but it was for the JVs and, therefore, these JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. After considering the arguments of the assessee, the coordinate bench of the ITAT Cuttack in these two cases (ITA No.193 & 194/CTK/2019) has held that these JVs are eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. The relevant observations as made in the said order are as under :- 48. Now, we further proceed to adjudicate the grounds of assessee on merits in ITA Nos.193 & 194/CTK/2019. Ld. AR has relied on the provision of sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of sub-section 4 of Section 80IA of the Act and has submitted that sub-section (4) applies to an entity which is owned by a company registered in India or by consortium of such company. He further explained that in these two appeals, the assessee the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act with regard to the income earned from the Joint Venture entity which was created by the respective assessees for the purpose of executing development-cum-contract work, thus, they are also entitled for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and later itself claimed deduction u/s.80IA on the vary same project which is not permissible in the eyes of law as deduction u/s.80IA cannot be allowed to two entities as developer enterprise on a single project. 29. The entire discussion lead to following facts :- (i) assessee is one of the constituent of two separate Joint Venture Entities and partly executed the projects awarded to such JV entities. ii) JV entities had claimed deduction u/s.80IA of the Act on such project and allowed to them. Wherever the claim was not allowed to the JVs, such claim was agitated in appeals and it was submitted that though the works were executed through constituents, however, since no work was carried out by the third party i.e. other than the constituents therefore, the JVs are entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and accordingly those JVs were succeeded in appellate forums and allowed the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. iii) the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act could be allowed to the enterprises who developed the infrastructure facility which in the present case are two JV Entities. iv) The deduction u/s.80IA on one single project cannot be allowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e SEZ under reference is appearing at Sl.No.259 where M/s Vedanta Aluminum Co. Ltd. is declared as the "developer" and not the assessee, therefore, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessee cannot be allowed deduction u/s.80IAB of the Act. 34. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before dwelling upon the issue, the provisions of Section 80IAB of the act should be considered which read as under :- Deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking or enterprise engaged in development of Special Economic Zone. 80IAB. (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee, being a Developer, includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business of developing a Special Economic Zone, notified on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to one hundred per cent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years: Provided that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Bhurkamunda, Brundamal and Kurebaga Villages, Tehsil and District Jharsuguda, in the state of Orissa. As the Government has notified M/s Vedanta Aluminium ltd. as "developer" and the assessee has simply executed road work for M/s Vedanta Aluminum Co. Ltd., in its plant situated in SEZ, therefore, such activity could be termed as contract between M/s Vedanta Alluminium Ltd. and the assessee and such activity has nothing to do with the development of the SEZ as a developer. Since the assessee is not a developer, it is not entitled deduction u/s.80IAB of the Act. Therefore, the same cannot be allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground No.3 of the assessee is dismissed. 36. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as discussed above. 37. Thus, the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.77/CTK/2023 for A.Y.2011-2012 is dismissed. 38. Now, coming to the appeal of the revenue wherein at the outset, we find that in the appeal filed by the Revenue, the total tax effect is less than Rs. 60 lakhs as per the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT vide its Circular No.09/2024, dated 17.09.2024. 39. Ld. CIT-DR also fairly conceded that no doubt the tax effe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the submission filed in A.Y.2011-2012 and further submit that the facts in the year under appeal are identical with the facts of A.Y.2011-2012. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR also accepted this fact and placed reliance on the arguments made in A.Y.2011-2012. This issue has been discussed elaborately in assessee's appeal for A.Y.2011-2012 in IT(SS)A No.77/CTK/2023, wherein while deciding ground of appeal No.2, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled deduction u/s.80IA of the Act on the work executed by it for and on behalf of the joint venture firm Since the facts are identical, therefore, by following the said order, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 44. Ground No.2 is in relation to the disallowance of deduction u/s.80IAB of the Act. This issue has already been decided by us in assessee's appeal for A.Y.2011-2012 in IT(SS)A No.77/CTK/2023, wherein while deciding ground of appeal No.3, we are of the view that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.80IAB of the Act as it is not the developer for the purpose of establishing the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned from work undertaken by the appellant as a member of the consortium in respect of the projects undertaken by the joint ventures/ consortiums. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it. 48. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in its appeal i.e. in ITA No.141/CTK/2023 are as under :- 1. The CIT(A) erred in law in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) to the assessee when the assessee doesn't satisfy the requisite conditions to be eligible to get the deduction/s 80IA(4) of the Act. 2. The CIT(A) ought to appreciate that in the facts and circumstances of the case the meaning of 'works contract' as in Explanation to Section 80IA as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3. The CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 80IA. 4. The CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee-compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Rs. 27,62,149/-, where the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the interest free funds were applied for making investments, however, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed Rs. 4,25,543/- being 0.5% of the average value of the investments towards the management fee etc.. Since the assessee is a private limited company and is having expenditure on the staff for management of the contracts between the joint venture and the assessee company and, therefore, the incurrence of expenditure to earn income from the joint venture, which is exempt from tax cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 7,45,964/- as profits from the joint venture, which is exempt from tax, therefore, the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act to the extent of such income is reasonable. Since the half per cent of the average value of the investments comes to Rs. 4,25,543/-, which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A), thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming such disallowance. Accordingly, disallowance of Rs. 4,25,543/- is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.1, 2 and 3 are dismissed. 54. Ground No.4 is in relation to the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act for the work undertaken by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te bench of the Tribunal while deciding the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.195/CTK/2019 has held that a literal interpretation should be taken. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of ITO Vs. Wipro Limited, passed in CA No.1449 of 2022, dated 11.07.2022 and also in the case of M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., passed in CA No.2833 of 2016, dated 12.10.2022 has held that the taxation issue are to be constituted strictly. He further placed a written submission on record, which reproduced as under :- 1. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 11.07.2022 in CA case of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Wipro Limited in CA no 1449 of 2022. Though the of Income Supreme Court of India in the Wipro Case(supra) has given its judgment on the issue of non-compliance of the conditions prescribed in judgment (8) of Income Tax Act which prescribes furnishing of declaration under 108(8)108(8) of Income Tax Act before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India will be applicable in all cases where any exemptions have been claimed without complyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with." 6. Further, a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 12.10.2012 in the case of M/S Checkmate Services P. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax in CA No. 2833 of 2016 has formulated the guiding principle for interpretation of tax statue when exemptions or deduction have been claimed. In para 48 of this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that: 48. "One of the rules of interpretation of a tax statue is that if a deduction or exemption is available on compliance with certain conditions, the conditions are to be strictly complied with. This rule is in line with the general principle that taxing statues are to be construed strictly" 7. In para 49 of the Checkmate Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid conclusion by affirming its own judgment in the case of the State of Jharkhand Vs M/S Ambay Cements (2005) 1 SCC 368. The quoted part of the judgment of M/S Ambay Cement(supra) is reproduced as under: 26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and lays ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l income of the appellant on account of disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. 1.2.1] At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that issue in dispute in the present appeal is regarding the allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. In this respect, we would like to bring this fact to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Bench that identical issue arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT Le. Hon'ble ITAT Cuttack Bench in the case of the appellant itself for the Assessment Year 2014-15 wherein the Hon'ble Bench of ITAT duly examined the said issue at length and reached to a conclusion that the appellant was eligible to claim the benefit of deduction under sub- section (4) of section 80IA of the Act since it was a developer-cum-contractor and not merely a contractor who undertook work contracts only. Moreover, there was no adverse inference regarding non-compliance of any of the conditions specified in sub-section (4) of section 80IA of the Act even during the said proceedings for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 1.2.2) The relevant extract from the order passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bench of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee was required to furnish details of technical personnel, plant and machinery, past experience of similar work, financial strength etc. at the time of applying for tender in the form of technical bid, which further prove beyond doubt that the appellant not only carried business risk but also undertook entrepreneurial risk, financial risk and investment risk and almost all responsibilities as noted in preceding para of this order. 44. In our humble understanding, Explanation below section 80IA(13) wαs inserted to prevent misuse and abuse of tax incentives and the purpose of same was explained in the explanatory clause 22 to the amendment which clarifies that the provisions of section 80IA shall not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise referred to in the said section. Thus, in a case where a person makes the investment and himself executes the development work le. carries out the civil construction work, he will be eligible for tax benefit under section 80IA. The purpose of legislature behind insertion of Explanation below Section 80IA(13) of the Act was to clarify that mere works contract would not be el....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of deduction u/s.80IA[4] of the Act to the assessee 47.6 The above noted factual matrix, placed before the bench by way of relevant documentary evidence, copies of the contract development agreements and other legal propositions and citations on the issue pertaining to present assessee M/s Balaji Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.195/CTK/2019) have not been controverted by the Id. CIT DR Therefore, we hold that the AO was right in allowing the claim of assessee u/s 80IA(4) of the Act after due examination and verification of the relevant materials, documents, copies of the contract and evidence etc., thus, on merits the assessment order cannot be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Emphasis Supplied) 1.2.3) On perusal of the relevant extract from the order passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT in the case of the appellant only for Assessment Year 2014-15, as reproduced hereinabove, it shall be quite manifest that the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of the appellant itself and that too under identical facts and circumstances, categorically reached to a conclusion that the appellant was not merely a contractor but it was a deve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only took business risk but also undertook entrepreneurial risk, financial risk and investment risk associated with these projects and therefore, the appellant was eligible to claim the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 1.2.6. Henceforth, the Ld CITIA) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1.52,72.905/- made to the total income of the appellant on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA a of the Act and therefore, the Hon'ble Bench is thereby kindly requested to affirm the findings of Ld CIT(A) 1.3.1) However, for the sake of brevity, the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is again being discussed hereunder on merits of the case. The gist of the observations of the Ld. AD as discussed in the assessment order while disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in under (a) The documents in the form of agreement with various authorities are nothing but works contract as the assessee periodically receives money for execution of such contracts TDS were deducted by the principals u/s 194C of the Act which presupposes that such were works contract only. An explanation below sub-section [13] of section 80IA of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aining 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: Provided that where an infrastructure facility is transferred on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 by an enterprise which developed such infrastructure facility (hereafter referred to in this section as the transferor enterprise) to another enterprise (hereafter in this section referred to as the transferee enterprise) for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Central Government, State Government, local authority or statutory body, the provisions of this section shall apply to the transferee enterprise as if it were the enterprise to which this clause applies and the deduction from profits and gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprises would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place. Provided further that nothing contained in this section shall apply to any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nderstand the need and true spirit behind introducing the said Explanation 1.4.5] In 2007, an explanation was inserted with retrospective effect from April 1, 2000, which read as follows: "Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply to person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise, as the case may be." 1.4.6) The relevant extract from the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill 2007 dealing with the issue in hand, read as under: "Clarification regarding developer with reference to infrastructure facility, industrial park, etc. for the purposes of section 80IA Section 80IA, inter alia, provides for a ten-year tax benefit to an enterprise or an undertaking engaged in development of infrastructure facilities, Industrial Parks and Special Economic Zones. The tax benefit was introduced for the reason that industrial modernization requires a massive expansion of, and qualitative improvement in, infrastructure (viz., expressways, highways, airports, ports and rapid urban rail transport systems) which was lacking i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provisions in the Finance (No 2) Bill of 2009 dealing with the issue in hand, read as under "Further, with a view to preventing the misuse of the tax holiday under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, it is proposed to amend the Explanation to the said section to clarify that nothing contained in the said section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub section (4) of the said section which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government and executed by an undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-section (1) thereof." Emphasis Supplied 1.4.10) On a conjoint reading of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2007 and Finance (No. 2) Bill of 2009, it appears that section 80IA of the Act was an instrument of legislative policy conceived with a view to provide an impetus to private sector participation in the infrastructural projects. Consistent with the legislative object of encouraging private sector participation in the development of infrastructure, section 80IA was enacted. The purpose of the tax benefit had all along been for encouraging private sector participation by way of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the contractee. 1.4.15] At this juncture, it is also imperative to appreciate the difference between a "developer" and a "contractor". These terms have neither been defined in the Act nor in the General Clauses Act and therefore, we need to go through the dictionary meaning of these words. As per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 'developer is a person or company that designs and creates new products, whereas "contractor" is a person or a company that has a contract to do work or provides services or goods to another. The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the word contractor as person who enters into a contract or agreement. Now chiefly spec. a person or firm that undertakes work by contract, esp. for building to specified plans". 1.4.16) In the light of the meaning ascribed to these words by the dictionaries, it is observed that the developer in a person who creates new products. He may execute the entire project himself or assign some parts of it to others On the contrary, the contractor in the one who is assigned a particular job to be accomplished on the behalf of the developer. There may, in certain circumstances, be overlapping in the wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a developer cum contractor or a mere contractor engaged in works contract Hence, the observations of the Ld. AO in the under passed u/s 1433) of the Act treating the appellant as merely works contractor were ill founded and perverse since every contractor may not be a developer but every developer developing infrastructure facility on behalf of the Government is necessarily a contracter. Accordingly, the contractors performing the work in the nature of a developer-cumcontractor and assuming risks and responsibilities shall be eligible for deduction under section 80- IA of the Act in respect of the eligible infrastructural facilities as in the present case of the appellant. There have also been a few landmark judicial precedents which have elaborately discussed and laid down broad guidelines/ parameters to ascertain whether the contract entered into by an assessee for development of infrastructural facility would be in the capacity of a *contractor-cum-developer" or "contractor engaged in works contract". Relevant extracts from these judicial precedents are reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of Your Hon'our 1.5.1] The Hon'ble I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exercise complete realm over the land or the project However, in some case there can be a situation that the developer has to take the approval of the design from the Government/contractee but that will not change the status of the developer as works contractor. (b) That the first phase for the developers is to take over the existing premises of the projects and thereafter developing the same into infrastructure facility. Secondly, the assessee shall facilitate the people to use the available existing facility even while the process of development is in progress. (c) That a developer has to execute managerial responsibility by engaging the requisite qualified/skilled/semi-skilled staff and the labourers including the other supporting staff. As the developer under takes the complete responsibility of the manpower to be used in developing the infrastructure facility. (d) The assessee has to utilize its expertise, experience including its technical knowhow in the development of the project (e) That a developer has to execute financial responsibility. A developer is therefore expected to arrange finances either by private placement or from financial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity whereas the contractors are those persons who merely execute part of these functions on behalf of developer and do not own any risks and responsibilities of the work. In such cases, the contractors may not be eligible for the deduction under section 80IA of the Act, as they are not developing any infrastructure facility but only providing assistance to the actual developer. 13.6 On the detailed analysis of the above project, we find that the assessee meets the criteria laid down for the developer as discussed above. Thus, the fact that the assessee deploys its resources (material, machinery, labour etc.) in the construction work clearly exhibits the risks undertaken by the assessee. Further, the assessee in the tender documents as discussed above has clearly demonstrated the various risks undertaken by it. The assessee was to furnish a security deposit to the Government and indemnify at the same time of any losses/damage caused to any property/life in course of execution of works. Further, the assessee was responsible for the correction of defects arising in the works at its own cost. For that purpose the Government retained the money payable to the assessee as a measu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. Thus, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where the assessee is a works contract simpliciter, where the Government authority has provided the assessee with the entire setup i.e. plant & machinery, materials and the infrastructure needed to support construction; and all that the assessee had to employ was labour to carry out construction. Instead in this case the assessee had provided an entire enterprise which was needed to convert the site (given by the Government) into an infrastructural facility. 9. In the instant case, as will be evident from the perusal of the agreements, as enclosed in the Paper book and relevant portions of which are discussed as above, all the agreements under consideration are not for a specific work, they are for development of facility as a whole. Therefore, merely because in the agreement for development of infrastructure facility, assessee is referred to as contractor or because some basic specifications are laid down, it does not detract the assessee from the position of being a developer, nor will it debar the assessee from claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act 10. It is noted that in a development contract, respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is eligible for benefit u/s 80IA even if part of the Infrastructural Project work is executed" [Emphasis Supplied) 1.5.4) The Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad Bench 'B' in the case of GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad reported in [2012] 51 SOT 207 (Hyderabad) (URO) held that: "28. The next question is to be answered is whether the assessee is a developer or mere works contractor. The Revenue relied on the amendments brought in by the Finance Act 2007 and 2009 to mention that the activity undertaken by the assessee is akin to works contract and he is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)of the Act. Whether the assessee is a developer or works contractor is purely depends on the nature of the work undertaken has to be analyzed and a conclusion has to be drawn about the nature of the work undertaken by the assessee. The agreement entered into with the Government or the Government body may be a mere works contract or for development of infrastructure. It is to be seen from the agreements entered into by the assessee with the Government. We find that the Government handed over the possession of the premises of projects to the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act. This cannot be considered as a mere works contract but has to be considered as a development of infrastructure facility: Therefore, the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor as presumed by the Revenue. The circular issued by the Board, relied on by learned counsel for the assessee, clearly indicate that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The department is not correct in holding that the assessee is a mere contractor of the work and not a developer. 29. We also find that as per the provisions of the section 80IA of the Act, a person being a company has to enter into an agreement with the Government or Government undertakings. Such an agreement is a contract and for the purpose of the agreement a person may be called as a contractor as he entered into a contract. But the word "contractor" is used to denote a person entering into an agreement for undertaking the development of infrastructure facility. Every agreement entered into is a contract The word "contractor" is used to denote the person who enters into such contract. Even a person who enters into a contract for development of infrastructure facility is a contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e infrastructure facility and to collect toll there from, has no other source recoupment of his cost of development. The Indore Bench of the Tribunal in case of Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT (138 ITD 433) held that "As per our considered view, after amendment by the Finance Act, 2002 for claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) infrastructure facility is only required to be developed and there is no condition that assessee should also operate the same Thus, after amendment, when the assessee is not required to operate the facility, the payment for development of such infrastructure is required to be made by the Government only After amendment, when assessee undertakes to develop the infrastructure facility only, it is the Government who will make payment to assessee in respect of infrastructure facility developed by it in terms of agreement so entered with Government Thus, we do not find any infringement of conditions for claim of deduction" 8.6 Thus from the above, it is clear that the fact that the assessee had received payments from the Government in progress of its work has no bearing on eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA Further, the Revenue in all the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsibility is fully assigned to the developer for execution and completion of work. (1) That although the ownership of the site or the ownership over the land remains with the owner but during the period of development agreement the developer exercise complete domain over the land or the project. That a developer is not expected to raise bills at every step of construction but he is expected to charge the cost of construction plus mark-up of his profit from the assignee of the contract. (k) That a developer is therefore expected to arrange finances and also to undertake risk (1) That in contrast to the rights of a "contractor" a "developer" is authorized to raise funds either by private placement or by financial institutions on the basis of the project. These are few broad qualities of a developer through which the character of a developer can be defined." (i) ITAT Hyderabad) in case of Keys and Co, Construction (P) Ltd ACIT [51 SOT 203] held that The explanatory memorandum to Finance Act 2007 states that the purpose of the tax benefit has all long been to encourage investment in development of infrastructure sector and not for the persons who merely execute the civil cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the contention of the AO that the assessee had not undertaken any entrepreneurial and investment risk is an incorrect interpretation of the facts. Lastly, with regard to the project O&M, Bangalore (on which a deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- was claimed), it is submitted that it is an operation and maintenance project, to which Explanation to section 80IA(13) does not apply. Explanation to section 80IA(13) merely distinguishes between a developer and works contractor. It clarifies that a works contractor shall not be included in the category of 'developer u/s 80IA. Thus, the Explanation clearly does not apply to O&M projects. Hence, deduction of Rs. 35,16,9411- claimed for the aforesaid project u/s 80IA cannot be denied by invoking the explanation to section 80IA. 9. From the perusal of the terms and conditions in the agreement, it is clear that the assessee was not a works contractor simplicitor and was a developer and hence Explanation to section 80IA(13) does not apply to the assessee. Further, in addition to developing the infrastructure facility, the assessee was even operating and maintaining the same. Thus, clearly the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Page 15, para 19.1) (viii) (Defect Liability Period. Even after the completion of works the responsibility of the assessee did not end, it was correct defects arising therein at its own cost (page 28, para 49.3) The said period was 12 (Twelve months and extension of defect liability period-24 months (page 46) (ix) Performance Security: The performance security will be in the form of an unconditional and irrevocable Bank Guarantee in the amount 10 (ten) percent of contract price (page 45). Further, such performance Security was to be valid till successful completion of works and remedying of defects therein. (page 13, para 10.2) (x) Retention Money: 10 (ten) percent of Interim payment certificate subject to 5 percent of total contract price. Upon issue of taking over certificate one half of retention money would be paid whereas the other half would be paid on expiration of the Defects Liability period. (Page 35, para 60.3) (x) The assessee was to indemnify the Employer against all losses and claims in respect of death or injury to any person or damage to any property (other than works) which may arise in course of execution of works (page 17, para....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Radhe Developers. We also noted the terms of the agreement of sale entered into between the parties. Such conditions would immediately reveal that the owner of the land had received part of sale consideration. In lieu thereof he had granted development permission to the assessee. He had also parted with the possession of the land. The development of the land was to be done entirely by the assessee by constructing residential units thereon as per the plans approved by the local authority. It was specified that the assessee would bring in technical knowledge and skill required for execution of such project. The assessee had to pay the fees to the Architects and Engineers. Additionally, assessee was also authorized to appoint any other Architect or Engineer, legal adviser and other professionals. He would appoint Sub-contractor or labour contractor for execution of the work. The assessee was authorized to admit the persons willing to join the scheme. The assessee was authorised to receive the contributions and other deposits and also raise demands from the members for dues and execute such demands through legal procedure. In case, for some reason, the member already admitted is d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acted only as a Works contractor Emphasis Supplied 1.5.8] The Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench 'D' in the case of En-vision Enviro Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle-1, Surat reported in [2012] 150 TTJ 621 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) has held that: "7. We have heard both the parties at some length. We have perused the compilation filed, in the light of the provisions of the Act. Section 80IA was subject to a change on several occasions in the past, however for the year under consideration, Le. A.Y. 2005-06, the section substituted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1/4/2002 is applicable. This section prescribes that in respect of profits and gains from an Industrial Undertaking engaged in infrastructure development, a deduction of an amount equal to 100% of the profits shall be allowed. Section 80IA(4) prescribes that an Enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii)operating and maintaining or (ii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility shall qualify for the deduction. This sub-section says that the Enterprise has to enter into an agreement with the Government, either Central or State, for developing or operating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble Court as also considering the nature of the work executed by this assessee, we are not inclined to agree with the AO that the assessee has acted merely as a "contractor", rather, we hereby hold that the assessee has acted as a "developer". 1.8.91 The Henhle ITAT Mumbai Bench 'B' in the case of Bhinmal Contractors Prunett and Land Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT/DCIT-4(1), Mumbai reported in [2018] 170 ITD 599 (Mumbai) has held that: "14. Here it is important to mention that the Legislature inserted the word ar between and with effect from 1-4-2002, which is applicable to assessment year 2002-03 onwards. So with effect from the assessment year 2002-03, not only the enterprise (1) developing. (1) operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility shall be entitled to deduction, but also the enterprise which is only (developing, or (ii) operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility. From such year onwards the enterprise which only develops the infrastructure facility and thereafter transfers it to someone else for operating and maintaining on behalf of transferee shall also be covered for the purposes of granting benefit The differenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the behalf of the developer. His duty is to translate such design into reality. There may, in certain circumstances, be overlapping in the work of developer and contractor, but the line of demarcation between the two is thick and unbreachable. When the person acting as developer, who designs the project, also executes the construction work, he works in the capacity of contractor too. But when he assigns the job of construction to someone else, he remains the developer simpliciter, whereas the person to whom the job of construction is assigned, becomes the contractor. 17. The role of developer is much larger than that of the contractor. It is no doubt true that in certain circumstances, a developer may also do the work of a contractor but a mere contractor per se can never be called as a developer, who undertakes to do work according to the pre-decided plan. 1.5.10] The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT. Montecatio Ltd reported in (2024) 162 taxmann.com 389 (Gujarat) has approved the findings of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench wherein it held that held that: 3.14. The CIT (Appeal) has further examined as to whether the project assigned t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Supreme Court which had laid down the legal principle as to what and under what circumstances the Commissioner of Income-tax can exercise power under section 263 of the Act. 5. The revenue has not disputed before us that ne disallowance was made in the previous two assessment years as well as the subsequent two assessment years. Thus in the absence of any distinguished feature in the nature of contract the Rule of Consistency has to be upheld. Thus we find that no questions of law, much less substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal." [Emphasis supplied) 1.6.1) It is being highlighted that the appellant brought in his own material according to the specification of the employer, skilled manpower, technical expertise for the execution and timely completion of the work, responsibility of development, to rectify and/or indemnify against damages and had undertaken entrepreneurial and investment risks while carrying out the infrastructure development facilities. It was further submitted that all the agreements entered into by the appellant carried such clauses which proved that the appellant was taking all sorts of risk whether it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 962 5 Human Resource The assessee has required to admit staffs with approval of Engineer according to their Qualifications, abilities and relevant experience as of the personnel listed in the schedule thereby depicting. requirement of specially qualified people for execution of the contract Para 9 962 6 Material The assessee confirms that no material supply has been made by the employer and all purchases made by the assessee from the third party has to undergo through quality assurance procedure proposed by the employer Para 4:1 928 7 Labour The assessee was required make arrangements his for OLLIFL the engagement of all staff and labour, local or other, and for their payment, housing. feeding and transport. Para 1 8 Indemnity/Liability for damages i) The assessee is liable to pay liquidated damages to the employer at the rate per day stated in contact thereby the assessee has to indemnify for the damages. Para 49.1 971 9 Correction of defects The assessee had undertaken to complete the undertaken to complete the work and remedy any defects therein thereby taking the liability for correction of defects....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was assigned full responsibility to do all acts for execution and completion of work right from the beginning till handing over of the project to the employer. The contract was not for a specific work but for development of the infrastructural facility as a whole. The contract also bound the appellant for change of scope of work in respect of any deviation/modification/extra work as envisaged during the execution of the project. (ii) The appellant shouldered out investment and technical risk in respect of the work executed by it. It was merely provided with the site which it had to develop into an infrastructural facility by undertaking huge risks in terms of deployment of technical personnel, plant and machinery, technical knowhow, expertise and financial resources. (iii) The material required for the project was purchased by the appellant from third party which had to undergo through quality assurance procedure proposed by the employer. The employer did not provide any material to the appellant. (iv) The appellant was required to bring in plant and machineries to be used in the project. The appellant invested a huge amount in its plant and machineries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e construction work and that the appellant was liable to indemnify the employer for any losses/ damage caused to any property/ life in the course of execution of work, clearly exhibited the risks undertaken by the appellant. 1.6.7) Further, it is also being highlighted that the appellant has executed work pertaining to agreement with Chief Engineer N.H. Division, Bhubaneswar (Odisha) for Widening existing single/Intermediate lane to two lane with strengthening from 59/0 to 68/0km of Nh-200, Vide Job No-NH-049-ORS-2008-09-418, Ag No- SBD No-01/2009-10 during the Assessment Year 2014-15 also wherein the Hon'ble ITAT 'Cuttack Bench itself has duly treated the appellant as a developer-cum-contractor and has allowed deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Hence, it is evident that the infrastructural development preinstall undertaken by the appellant during Assessment Year 2011-12 were identical to the Infrastructural development projects undertaken by the appellant during the Assessment Year 2014-15 in respect of which the Jurisdictional Bench of ITAT itself had held that the appellant was eligible for claiming the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act and there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Adhunik Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. J.C.LT, Range 10, Kolkata I.T.A. No. 1281/Kol/2015) wherein it was held that: 9.3.2. Thus as per section 194C of the Act also, "works contract does not include a contract wherein, the contractor in addition to employing labour, procures material from a third party. Thus, contracts involving mere labour of the contractor are included in the purview of "works contract We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. us. CIT reported in 201 ITR 435 while interpreting the term 'work' u/s 194C of the Act had held that words any work in section 194C(1) of the Act means any work including supply of labour to carry out work and is not intended to be confined to or restricted to works contract, therefore, a person who credits to the account of or pays to a contractor any sum payable on behalf of organizations specified in section 194C(1) of the Act for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work) is liable to deduct income-tax as required under that subsection. The words in the sub-section (1) of 194C of the Act on income comprise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If, we are to accept the contention of the Ld. CIT that the provisions of section 80IA(4) of the Act after the substitution of the explanation to section 80IA of the Act was introduced was only for the purpose of giving the benefit to BOT contracts then, the explanation to section 80IA(4) of the Act becomes otiose. This is as explanation to section 80IA(4) of the Act specifically provides for the road to include a toll road, a bridge or a rail system. BOT contract in respect of the railway system can never exist. Further, a perusal of the provisions of section 80IA of the Act shows that the term 'works contract' is not defined in the said section. However, the terms 'works' and 'contract' is defined in the provisions of section 194C of the Act. If a particular word or term is not defined in the specific section then, one could go to other sections in the said Act where the definition would be available to draw a meaning to the said terms. In the provisions of section 194C of the Act, work has been given an inclusive definition but in the subsequent portion it has excluded the manufacturing or supplying a product according to requirement or specification of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that even though the definition of "work" provided in section 194C of the Act is "Inclusive" and not "exhaustive", yet, it specifically excludes from Purview, "manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement at specification of a customer by using material purchased from a person, other than such customer. Therefore, it is evident that a works contract constitutes a contract under which the contractor is merely employing his efforts of labour and under such contrast, the contractee provides the material and other requisites is complete infrastructure) needed to carry out the desired work to the contractor who by applying his labour to the said material turns the material into a desired product 1.7.6] However, in the facts of the present case, the appellant was assigned the responsibility for development of infrastructural facility as a whole and the appellant was solely responsible to mobilize and procure all the material and other resources as per the specification of the employers. The appellant also undertook entrepreneurial and investment/ financial risk besides business risk in executing the development project which was akin to performing work in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the appellant u/s 80IA of the Act was within the four corners of law in light of the facts involved in the present case which was duly supported with the findings re- iterated in the numerous judicial precedents cited (supra). 1.10] In view of the elaborate discussion duly corroborated with the findings re-iterated in the Judicial precedents cited supra, it becomes abundantly clear that the appellant satisfied all the conditions prescribed therein for claiming the benefit of deductions u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. The deductions claimed by the appellant were legitimate and within the four corners of law. The Ld. AO himself did not dispute the fact that the appellant did not satisfy any of the conditions prescribed therein except for the Explanation inserted below sub-section (13) of section 80IA of the Act wherein it was stated that deduction shall not be allowed in relation to a business which is in the nature of a "works contract". However, the appellant has categorically explained in the previous paragraphs of this submission that it was a contractor performing work in nature of a developer-cum-contractor and was also assuming risks and responsibilities akin to that of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act that the assessee is required to act as a developer, who is also operating and maintaining infrastructural facilities and has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of AVG Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra), On careful and respectful perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court particularly from paras 22 and 23, it is amply clear that after the amendment to clause (i) of the section 80IA(4) read as (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility, prior to amendment the "or" between three activities were not there, after the amendment the word "or" has been inserted w.e.f.1-4-2002 by Finance Act 2001. The relevant paras 22 & 23 of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra) are thus, :- 22. Another submission which was urged on behalf of the Revenue is that under clause (iii) of sub-section (4A) of Section 80IA, one of the conditions imposed was that the enterprise must start operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after 1st April 1995. The same requirement is embodied in sub-clause (c) of clause (i) of sub-sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e principle. The subsequent amendment of Section 80IA(4A) of the Act to clarify that the provision would apply to an enterprise engaged in (i) developing; or (ii) operating and maintaining; or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility was reflective of a position which was always construed to hold the field. Before the amendment that was brought about by Parliament by Finance Act of 2001, we have already noted that the consistent line of circulars of the Board postulated the same position. The amendment made by Parliament to Section 80IA(4) of the Act set the matter beyond any controversy by stipulating that the three conditions for development, operation and maintenance were not intended to be cumulative in nature. 47. Therefore, in view of above observations in the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of AVG Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra), we clearly and respectfully note that the amendment by Parliament to section 80IA(4) of the Act settled the issue by stipulating that the three conditions for development, operation and maintenance were not intended to be cumulative in nature and the provision would apply to an enterprise en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ib.). In this case, the assessee was awarded a contract to construct Road by NHAI and it was to procure raw material, make arrangements for power, water, plant machinery etc., and conduct all other activities needed for construction, assessee was a developer and not a mere works contractor and, accordingly was held eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and similar facts exist in the present case and, thus, this proposition also supports the ground of assessee on merits. 47.3 The ld. CITDR has placed vehement reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Covanta Samalpatti Operating (P) Ltd. (supra) and the order of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Yojaka Marine (P) Ltd. (supra). On careful and respectful perusal of these judgments, we are in agreement with the contentions of the ld. AR that these judgments are related to the assessees, who were engaged only in the contract of repair and maintenance and not doing any development of infrastructure facility akin to the business of present assessee, therefore, we respectfully hold that benefit of these judgments is not available for the revenue in the present case. The order of the ITAT Mumbai "L" Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax benefit was introduced for the reason that industrial modernization requires a passive expansion of, and qualitative improvement in, infrastructure (viz., expressways, highways, airports, ports and rapid urban rail transport systems) which was lacking in our country. The purpose of the tax benefit has all along been for encouraging private sector participation by way of investment in development of the infrastructure sector and not (or the persons who merely execute the civil construction work or any other works contract. Accordingly, it is proposed to clarify that the provisions of section 80IA shall not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprise referred to in the said section. Thus, in a case where a person makes the investment and himself executes the development work, i.e., carries out the civil construction work, he will be eligible for tax benefit under section 80IA. In contrast to this, a person who enters into a contract with another person (i.e., undertaking or enterprise referred to in section 80IA) for executing works contract, will not be eligible for tax benefit under section 80IA. This amendmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....astructure facilities, therefore, we are in agreement with the order of the ld. CIT(A) to such extent and the profits earned from those projects is allowed as deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act and direct the AO to exclude the profits of these three projects from the eligible amount of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 64. Thus, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. ITA No.89/CTK/2023 (AY:2017-2018) (by the assessee) 65. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the sole ground with regard to disallowance of additional claim of Rs. 6,02,75,436/- for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in respect of the profit earned from work undertaken by the assessee as a member of the consortium in respect of the projects undertaken by the joint ventures/consortiums. 66. This issue has already been discussed and decided against the assessee in assessee's appeal for A.Y.2011-2012 in IT(SS)A No.77/CTK/2023, the facts of the year under appeal are identical and the arguments put forth by the assessee are also same. Both the parties has stated that facts existed in the year under appeal are identical to facts in A.Y.2011-2012. Thus, following the reasoning given in the said appeal of the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances of the case the meaning of works contract' as in Explanation to Section 80IA as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3. The CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 80IA. 4. The CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee-company in lieu of execution of contract work be considered as profit and gains of business for deduction u/s 80IA. 5. The deduction u/s 80IA as per the condition in item (c) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 80IA can be availed only after the infrastructure facility has started (i.e got completion Certificate). However, the assessee being a contractor does not get any compensation after completion of project. In view of the above, whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding the eligibility of assessee company for deduction u/s.80IA on receipts accrued prior to completion of the project. 6. Any other ground of app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e year under appeal are identical to facts in A.Y.2011-2012. Thus, following the reasoning given in the said appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2011-2012, all the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. 76. Thus, the CO No.02/CTK/2023 filed by the assessee is dismissed. 77. In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.77, 296, 88 & 89/CTK/2023 along with CO No.02/CTK/2023 are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos.141 & 89/CTK/2023 are dismissed and ITA Nos.142 & 13/CTK/2023 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/01/2025. ============= Document 1 Page 397 CE/Con/III/BBS/T/07/2010 EAST COAST RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION ORGANISATION CHAPTER-03 SCOPE OF WORK IN BRIEF Name of work: Construction of ROB at km 530.269(815 m F/CSB of LPG Station) span (2x12m+2×22.5 m) RCC T-beam Girder and other allied works in connection with setting up Alumina smr Iter plant at Lapanga Station (Deposit work) (Two Packet System). Scope of work and salient features of the tender SCOPE Of WORK 1. The wc ks covered in this tender are required to provide line between Jharsuguda and Rengali - a part of Proj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of profit as earned by the appellant in respect of work done on behalf of JVs and profit as earned by the JV's is as under: Amount in Rs. 8. No Name of the JVs Gross contract value of JV Net profit earned by JV Amount of development work done by the appellant on behalf of JV Profit earned by the appellant Effective net profit earned on project allocated to JV 1. M/s Balaji ARSS (JV) 3,95,85,143 9,80,149 51,54,366 2,02,535 11,82,684 2. M/s SBEPL-GRIL (JV) 13,55,52,489 24,52,354 8,55,00,000 33,77,855 58,30,209 Total 17,51,37,632 - 34,32,503 9,06,54,366 35,80,390 70,12,893 Document 3 4 The 'Parties' have resolved that the distribution of share and responsibilities is as under a) SSA Lead Partner share Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd. 70%; 21. G GOVI OF ORISSA Responsibilities. i) Financial 100% (Technical, Financial & other obligations) ii) Other Obligation 100% Joint Venture Partner share 30% ili) Execution 51% Name ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited i) Technical 100% Responsibilities. (Technical, Financial & other obligations) ii) Execution 30% Document 4 Page 329 East Coast Railway Office of the Chief Engineer (Con)/11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and one hundred & forty six only) TOTAL SECURITY DEPOSIT : Rs.58,89,860/- (Rupees Fifty eight lakh eighty nine thousand eight hundred & sixty only) Estimate No. & Allocation : Estimate No. CE/C/111/8BS/SBP/ROB/LPG/DW/1, Allocation : Deposit Date of completion : 07.04.2011 i.e. 09 (Nine) months from the date of issue of the acceptance letter. REFERENCE TO THE INITIAL SECURITY DEPOSIT: Rs.7,58,320/ (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty eight thousand three hundred & twenty only) in shape of DD No. 888851 dtd. 18.03.2010 issued by SBI, Sanada (Belpahar) Branch, Jharsuguda by the contractor as EMD Is adjusted towards Security Deposit. BALANCE SECURITY DEPOSIT : Rs.51,31,540/- (Rupees fifty one lakh thirty one thousand five hundred & forty only) : The balance Security Deposit of Rs.51,31,540/- (Rupees Fifty one lakh thirty one thousand five hundred & forty only) will be recovered at the rate of 10% from running on account bill in accordance with the clause No. 34.3 of the Special Conditione of Contract, Chapter - 09. PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE : Rs.58,89,860/- (Rupees Fifty eight lakh eighty_nine thousand eight hundred & sixty only) : The contractor(s) has/have submitted B.G. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & twenty only) under receipt whereof by the Railway Administration is hereby acknowledged against the full Security amount of Rs.58,69,860/- (Rupees fifty eight lakh eighty nine thousand eight hundred & sixty only) calculated on the basis of clause No. 34.3 of the Special Conditions of Contract, Chapter-9, embodied hereunder and balance amount of Security Deposit i.e. Rs.51,31,540/. (Rupees fifty one lakh thirty one thousand five hundred & forty only) to be recovered from the progressive bills at the rate of 10% til it reaches the required value to be made on account of work being done, repayable as per Revised clause No. 16(1) of the General Conditions of Contract, Revised Edition 2001, Volume-11. NOW THIS INDENTOR PRESENTS WITNESSETH that in consideration of the payments to be made by the Railway, the contractor will duly perform the said works mentioned in the said schedules and shall execute the same with great promptness, care and accuracy in the workman like manner to the Satisfaction of the Railway and will complete the same in accordance with the said specifications, drawings and the said conditions of contract as amended and corrected from time to time on or before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 131/0 of N.H-200(Bid No. 33CENH/2009-10) and the employer has accepted the Bid by the contractor for he execution and completion of the work and remedy of any there in , at a cost of Rs. 38,25,49,957.00 (Rupees Thirty Eight crore twentyfive lakh fortynine thousand nine hundred fiftyseven) only MEMORANDUM Widening and strengthening of existing single/Intermediate lane to two lane with geometric improvement to two lane carriageway from km 89/0 to 104/0 and Km 117/0 to 131/0 of N.H-200 Rs. 38.25,49,957 .00 . (Rupees Thirty Eight crore twentyfive lakh fortynine thousand nine hundred fiftyseven) only a) Name of the work :- b) Agreement Amount :- S.B.I Samada Belpahar vide B.G No. 8445/26/03 Dt. 09.04.2010 6% from each bill subject to a maximum of 5% of final contract price. d) Security :- Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1,91,27,500.00(Rupees one crore ninetyone lakh twentyseven thousand five hundred Jonly issued by S.B.I Samada Belpahar vide guarantee No. 8445/26/59 Dt. 09.09.2010 valid spte 08.09.2011 e) Performance Security :- f) Additional performance Security :- Bank Guarantee of Rs. 95,63,800.00.00(Rupees ninetyfive lakh sixtythree thousand eight hundred Jonly is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be executed the 14" day of September ' 2010. Signature of the witness :- Fallash Agenel RAKESH AGRAWAL Name and Address of the witness .- C/o Johan Bhowna manger por Dist Thassagelen Occupation :- Binding Signature of Employer :- Executive Engineer N.H. Division Jharsuguda. Binding Signature of Contractor :- - For SSERI GRIL 1. .. 80/- sol/a Contractor Gerente Executive Engineer Divisional Accounts Officer N.H.Division, Jharsuguda N.H.Division Jharsuguda , ENGICON BELPAHAR SHRE ED Document 10 1.6 Qualification and experience of kry personnel required for administration and execution of Contract ( Reim Clause 4.5.2). Attached Biographical data. Refer also to sub clause 4.3 (e) of Instruction to Biddem and Sub Classe 9. 1 of the Conditions of Contract Contract Details of Technical Key Personnel SLNo Position Name Qualification Road Works Year Building Works of experience Other 1 Project Manager Talitendu Pataruik RF.Chil Ener 3 year 4 years 2 Site Engineer Ashok Kumar Naik BE.Civil Enge 6 years 2years |2 years 3 Site Engineer Sanjay Kumar Mishra B.E.Chvil Engg 7 vears 3 years |1 years 4 Site E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Rmrg Condition DEC11 1.Ihave verted the oweantip documents with the dertification ne.al the machineres/equipmentt. 2. Machines are campoly udland tucknicely for Bbe not under the Dlésion 1. The fachs provided am tras as on the date of issue of his document to the best of my knowledge Executive Engineer N.H.Division Jharsuguda. Document 12 PERFORMANCE RECORD OF CONTRACTOR 1 Name of the Contractor .. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd 2 Registration No. & Date 45 of 1997-98 3 Class of Contractor Super Class 4 Licensing Authority Chairman of the Committee of CEs & EIC (Civil) R&B Orissa 5 License valid up to : 31.03 2015 6 Details of work executed. : SI No. Job under execution Agreement Amount Date of commence ment Stipulated date of completion Whether work is/was progressing as per work programme Reasa ns for delay if any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Widening existing single /intermediate lane to two lane with IRQP form 104/0 km to 117/0 km of NH-200 Agt. No .: SBD No. 03/2009-10 857.26 Lakhs 20.10.2009 19.04.2011 Completed as per work programme Does not arise 2 3 Widening existing single /intermediate lane to two lane with strengthening from 51/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../SBP Provision of washable apron on Platform No. 3 at Sbp. station 1,01,75,818 6,66,,281 Provision of Limited subway Document 15 1. 20/SBP/LHS/DT-7/ SBP-A 1. 91/SBP/PF Shelter/ SBP-ANGL&BRGA-TIG between Sbp .- Angul section of Sbp 3,51,838 22,302 22,302 Provision of 1 bay standard platform shelters at various stations of Sambalpur Division 32,76,618 2,00,448 2,00,448 2. S.E Central Railway 4 a) 137/DEN-BSP/2013-14 Extension of BOCM 3&4 to create new sidings 1,83,61,656 . 10,02,724 10,02,724 b) 151/Ballast JSG- BPH/CEC/SECR/13 Supplying & stacking of 74,500 cum machine crushed stone 4,69,30,144 30,41,080 30,41,080 c) 159/Ballast/JMG- BPH/CEC/SECR/13 Supplying & stacking of 91,480 cum machine crushed stone 7,03,47,046 42,70,061 42,70,061 d) 141/EW/MIN BR/JMG Execution of earth work, construction of minor bridges 16,92,128 91,214 91,214 e) 06/EN-BSP/2015-16 Execution of earth work, construction of bridges culvert 2,21,50,554 14,83,881 14,83,881 Construction of E.I. Buildings f) 233/E/Bldg/RIG- JSG/CEC/SECR/15-16 Construction of E.I.Bldgs including electric installation 94,25,218 7,13,585 7,13,585 g) 235/QRTS/BRJN/ SECR- 15-16 COPY Construction o....