COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RANJIT PROJECTS PVT LTD

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad ‘B’ Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No.3120/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Years 2012-13, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal with the following proposed question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction made

Heard Mrs.Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue. C/TAXAP/701/2018 ORDER

At the outset, it is required to be noted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the very asssessee, but for earlier Assessment Years, the issue is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, so far as this Court is concerned. In the case of the very assessee, but for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.05.2018 in Tax Appeal Nos.426, 427 and 433 of 2018, has dismissed the Tax Appeals preferred by the Revenue and confirmed the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting disallowance and deduction made by the Assessing Officer under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. While dismissing the appeals, the Division Bench has observed in para-13 as under:- “13. The above statutory provisions and the relevant facts arising in the present case and noted above would leave little doubt in one's mind that GSRDC was a nodal agency constituted by the State Government for the purpose of executing road development projects through private participation and was a Government agency as defined in section 2(e) of the Act of 1999. Significant factors in the present case are that the road widening project was cleared by the Government, land for such purpose was alloted by the Government. The concession agreement which GSRDC executed was approved by C/TAXAP/701/2018 ORDER the Government. It was under the Government Resolution that the assessee would collect toll upon completion of such project. Upon the completion of the project period, the entire infrastructure so developed would vest in the Government. Signatory to the applicant may be GSRDC for all practical purposes and in essence, it was the agreement between the assessee and the State Government. We are conscious that condition(b) of subsection (4) of section 80IA requires the assessee to have entered into agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory authority. However, rigid interpretation of this provision as canvassed by the Revenue would only result into the assessees involved in genuine infrastructure development projects for and on behalf of the Government or local authorities would be denied the deduction merely on the ground that the State Government had created a nodal agency for working out the finer details and nittygritty of such infrastructure development. The purpose of creating such nodal agencies as well as the legislative intent of granting deduction to the assessee engaged in developing, maintaining or operating any infrastructure projects for Central or State Government or local or statutory authorities would frustrate.”

Considering the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the very assessee, but for earlier Assessment Years, viz. Assessment Years 2009- C/TAXAP/701/2018 ORDER 10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, no substantial question of law arises. Under the circumstances, present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. (M.R. SHAH, J) (A.Y. KOGJE, J) SHITOLE