TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A No.2363/PUN/2025 for assessment year 2017-18 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development, maintenance and operation of infrastructure facility like foot over bridges and road signages on BOT basis under an agreement with Indore Municipal Corporation. It filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 31.10.2017 declaring total income at Nil after claiming deduction of Rs. 3,08,54,662/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny as per norms of CBDT. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, he issued notice u/s 142(1) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act amounting to Rs. 3,08,54,662/ -. The appellant filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income at Nil, claiming deduction under section 80IA(4) in respect of profits derived from contracts executed with the Indore Municipal Corporation for the erection of road signages and construction of certain foot-over bridges. The case was selected for scrutiny, and requisite notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. The appellant furnished certain submissions, documents, and copies of work orders in support of its claim, asserting that the activities undertaken qualified as development of "infrastructure facilities" as defined under section 80IA(4). On a careful examination of the work orders, bills, and na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d signages, and that since foot-over bridges are specifically recognised as infrastructure facilities in section 80IA(4), the entire project qualifies for deduction. Reliance was placed on the order of the CIT(A) in the appellant's own case for A.Y. 2010-11, where a similar claim. was allowed, although the appellant fairly admitted that the said order had been reversed by the Hon'ble ITAT and was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. I have examined the rival contentions in the light of the statutory provisions and material on record. Section 80IA(4) provides for a deduction of profits and gains derived by an undertaking from any business of developing, operating, and maintaining any infrastructure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s contention regarding composite contracts also fails on scrutiny. Even if a work order covers both qualifying and non-qualifying activities, the eligibility of deduction under section 80IA(4) must be examined separately for each source of profit. The statute does not permit aggregation of profits from non-qualifying works with those from qualifying projects to claim a larger deduction. In the present case, the appellant has neither segregated the profits attributable to foot-over bridge construction from those relating to signages nor established that the entire profit claimed under section 80IA(4) arises exclusively from the construction of foot-over bridges. The burden of proof in such matters lies squarely on the assessee, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Rs. 3,08,54,662/- is upheld in full, and all the grounds raised in the appeal are dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act, it be held that the activity of developing, operating and maintaining of road signages and foot-over bridges amounts to development of roads and bridges, respectively and hence the assessee was engaged in the development of infrastructure facility as stated in section 80I(A) of the Act. Accordingly claim of Rs. 3,08,54,662/- made by the assessee company u/s 80I(A) of the Act be allowed. Just and proper reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case following his order for the preceding assessment years which has been upheld by the Tribunal, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,08,54,660/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Admittedly, t....