TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 17th January, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench, "A" Pune. The Appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, is that the Respondent- Assessee is engaged in the business of construction of roads and other infrastructure works. In its return of income for the year under consideration, the Respondent claimed deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act in respect of the infrastructure works undertaken by it. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act, disallowing the deduction, principally on the ground that the Assessee was merely a contractor and could not be regarded as a developer of an "infrastructure facility" within the mean....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antial question of law", though not defined in the Act, has received a settled meaning through a long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT (2011) 1 SCC 673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., has laid down the test to be applied in determining whether a question of law is substantial or not. The relevant portion reads thus:- "20. In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, a Constitution Bench of this Court, while explaining the import of the said expression, observed that: "6. ... The proper test for determining whether a que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In our view, the questions formulated by the Appellant do not give rise to a substantial question of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act. The expression "substantial question of law", though not defined in the Act, has received a settled meaning through a long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Vijay Kumar Talwar v. CIT (2011) 1 SCC 673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd., has laid down the test to be applied in determining whether a question of law is substantial or not. The relevant portion reads thus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re it are concerned. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not demonstrated that these findings are perverse or that the authorities below have applied an erroneous legal test. 7. As regards the second question projected by the Appellant, here also, we find that the learned Tribunal has relied upon its own earlier order dated 9th December, 2015, which has been confirmed by this Court. This is specifically recorded in paragraph 13 of the impugned order. We are unable to accept the submission of the Appellant that simply because the learned Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order, the impugned judgement suffers from any infirmity to such an extent so as to give rise to a substantial question of law meriting admission of the Appeal. 8. It is to be borne in mind that Section 260-A does not con....