THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

A.Y. Date of Filing Date of Filing Section under Date of Order of Date of Order of Original Revised Return which AO passed AO CIT(A) Return of of Income the order Income 2007-08 31/10/2007 10-01-2008, 143(3) 21/12/2009 05/10/2011 04-06-2008, 19-03-2009 2008-09 29/09/2008 20-03-2009, 143(3), 144 27-12-2010, 29- 07/07/2011 09-04-2009 r.w.s. 03-2014 153A(1)(b) 2009-10 29/09/2009 28/09/2010 143(3) r.w.s. 28/03/2014 16/05/2016 153A(1)(b) 2010-11 09/10/2010 28/09/2011 143(3) r.w.s. 28/03/2014 17/05/2016 153A(1)(b) 2011-12 29/09/2011 26/11/2012 143(3) r.w.s. 28/03/2014 18/05/2016 153A(1)(b) 2012-13 29/09/2012 24/11/2012 143(3) r.w.s. 28/03/2014 19/05/2016 153B(1)(b) 2013-14 29/11/2013 NA 143(3) 23/03/2016 17/01/2018 2014-15 29/11/2014 NA 143(3) 20/05/2016 17/01/2018 2015-16 25/11/2015 NA 143(3) 19/04/2017 29/03/2018 3.1. The assessee filed its return of income in response to Notice u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 on 07-11-2012 declaring the same income as per original or revised return of income for the and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

4 respective assessment years. In case of A.Y.2007-08 and A.Y. 2008-09 assessment u/s.143(3) was completed before the date of search making some additions by the AO. The AO also made various disallowances and additions during the course of proceedings 153A of the Act for the respective assessment years.

Disallowance/Addition Description of Disallowance/Addition and by AO Relief by CIT(A) Deduction u/s 80IA The AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA for infrastructure development, asserting that the eligibility conditions were not met. The CIT(A), however, found that the assessee had complied with the conditions and allowed the deduction in favour of the assessee. Provision for Defect The AO considered this as a contingent Liability liability that had not crystallized and disallowed the provision. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's argument that this was an ascertained liability related to defect rectification and allowed the deduction. Leave Encashment The AO disallowed the provision based on the Provision Supreme Court's judgment in Exide Industries, treating it as an unascertained liability. The CIT(A) partially allowed the deduction to the extent of actual payments made during the year, while retaining disallowance for unpaid amounts. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

5 Gross Profit Addition The AO made gross profit additions based on the estimation of inflated subcontractor expenses, questioning the genuineness of these transactions due to lack of confirmations. The CIT(A) provided partial relief, restricting additions only to amounts where confirmations from subcontractors were unavailable. Arbitration Award The AO treated an arbitration award as income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that it was not revenue in nature and thus not taxable. Bad Debts Written Off The AO disallowed the bad debt write-off, arguing that the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) were not met. The CIT(A) allowed the write-off, finding that the debt had indeed become irrecoverable. Bogus Purchases The AO disallowed certain purchases, considering them bogus transactions without supporting documentation. The CIT(A), however, allowed the purchases as genuine after reviewing evidence submitted by the assessee. Gift, Boni, and Chandla The AO disallowed these expenses as non- Expenses business in nature. The CIT(A) partially allowed the expenses as promotional in nature but confirmed a portion as non-business. U/S 40(a)(i) for Non- The AO disallowed expenses under Section deduction of TDS 40(a)(i) for non-compliance with TDS provisions, which require tax deduction on certain payments. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance for payments where TDS was not deducted as per the provision. U/S 14A for Expenses The AO disallowed expenses that were related related to Exempt Income to income exempt from tax under Section 14A. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for certain years, finding insufficient grounds for the AO’s action in those cases. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

Type of Ground Disallowance (Rs.) Appeal No. Deduction u/s 80IA 2007- ITA 43,35,594 Revenue 2 08 3269/Ahd/2011 2009- ITA 2,09,00,080 Revenue 3 10 246/Ahd/2016 2010- ITA 72,94,641 Revenue 3 11 247/Ahd/2016 2011- ITA 14,44,88,979 Revenue 3 12 248/Ahd/2016 2012- ITA 9,26,51,229 Revenue 3 13 249/Ahd/2016 2013- ITA 14,46,99,134 Revenue 1 14 796/Ahd/2018

2014- ITA 8,32,03,602 Revenue 1 15 797/Ahd/2018 2015- ITA 8,92,09,090 Revenue 1 16 1528/Ahd/2018 Gross Profit Addition 2008- ITA 24,43,00,129 Revenue 4 & 5 related to 09 245/Ahd/2016 Vendor/Subcontractor Transactions 2009- ITA 24,00,14,120 Revenue 1 & 2 10 246/Ahd/2016 2009- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 10 1746/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties 2010- ITA 10,57,78,781 Revenue 1 & 2 11 247/Ahd/2016 2010- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 11 1747/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

2011- ITA 84,23,956 Revenue 1 & 2 12 248/Ahd/2016

2011- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 12 1748/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties 2012- ITA 42,91,02,036 Revenue 1 & 2 13 249/Ahd/2016 2012- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 13 1749/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties Disallowance of 2013- ITA 2,25,05,524 Revenue 2 Purchases / Expenses 14 796/Ahd/2018 considering non- genuine

Provision for Defect 2007- ITA 3,56,48,498 Revenue 1 Liability (Warranty 08 3269/Ahd/2011 Expenses) 2008- ITA 6,12,08,221 Revenue 2 09 2353/Ahd/2014 2009- ITA 7,99,10,015 Revenue 4 10 246/Ahd/2016 Disallowance of Leave 2007- ITA 77,12,196 Assessee 2 Encashment 08 2815/Ahd/2011

2008- ITA 81,81,115 Assessee 3 09 2036/Ahd/2011 2009- ITA 33,34,815 Assessee 2.1 10 1746/Ahd/2016 2011- ITA 18,34,735 Assessee 3.1 12 1746/Ahd/2016 Penalty for Leave 2007- ITA 25,59,312 Assessee 1 Encashment 08 2603/Ahd/2013 2008- ITA 28,51,368 Assessee 1 09 2604/Ahd/2013 Disallowance under 2008- ITA 2,07,727 Assessee 1 Section 14A 09 2036/Ahd/2011 2011- ITA 82,86,127 Revenue 4 12 248/Ahd/2016 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

Disallowance of 2007- ITA 3,00,000 Assessee 1 Gift/Boni/Chandla 08 2815/Ahd/2011 Expenses

Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) 2010- ITA 1,26,97,906 Assessee 2.1 for Import of Materials 11 1747/Ahd/2016

Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) & in case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (397 TR 344) can be raised before the Hon'ble ITAT.

9 ITA No(s). Assessment Year ROI filed on Last date of issuing notice u/s 143(2) 245/Ahd/2016 2008-09 27-09-2008 30-09-2009 246/Ahd/2016 2009-10 29-09-2009 30-09-2010 247/Ahd/2016 2010-11 09-10-2010 30-09-2011 8.1. The AR further stated that during the course of search proceedings, no incriminating material was found. The AR also stated that in the order of AO there is no reference of any material or statement recorded during the course of search proceedings is made. The AR further stated that the remand report called for by the CIT(A) is also not having mention of any statement or material found during the course of search. Therefore, the AR argued that, where no incriminating material is found during the search, addition made during the assessment under section 153A of the Act of regular items which were disclosed by the assessee in regular books is not valid. The AR placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Friends Salt Works and Allied Indus (Tax Appeal No. 66 of 2024) reported at [224] 160 taxmann.com 676.

9.2. The DR pointed out that the assessee has filed revised return hence the date of filing revised return should be a decisive date to determine whether the particular year is abated or unabated. The DR also argued that intimation u/s 143(1) is not an assessment order therefor there was no assessment and hence the respective years are abated. The AR, on the other hand, stated that the time limit specified u/s 143(2) of the Act to issue notice will determine the status of the year and not the date of filing return. Since on the date of search time limit to issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was expired, as argued by the AR, the respective years are to be construed as unabated years. The AR relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal Vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle -1(3), Ahmedabad (ITA No. 153,154,155 & 156/Ahd/2012 dated 29-04-2016).

10.1. In the case of Friends Salt Works (supra), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that for an assessment to be disturbed under section 153A of the Act in an unabated year, there must be incriminating material found during the course of a search. The court observed that the purpose of section 153A of the Act is to facilitate assessments based on new findings or "incriminating material" uncovered during a search, which affects the total income of the assessee. Absent such incriminating evidence, assessments already completed under regular proceedings should remain undisturbed. The Hon’ble High Court emphasized that additions under section 153A of the Act cannot be arbitrary and must directly relate to evidence found during the search. This ruling is highly relevant here, as in the present case, the AR asserted that no incriminating material was found during the search, nor was any such material referenced in the Assessing Officer’s order, or the remand report called by CIT(A). This lack of incriminating evidence aligns with the court's holding in the case of Friends Salt Works(supra), validating the assessee’s claim that the section 153A of the Act assessments in unabated years are not justified.

10.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (454 ITR 212) affirmed the principle that, in cases of completed or "unabated" assessments, additions under section 153A must be founded on incriminating evidence discovered during the search. The Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 section 153A of the Act proceedings allow reassessment of completed assessments only when new material indicating undisclosed income is unearthed in a search. In the absence of such material, the completed assessments remain valid and cannot be disturbed solely based on routine information previously disclosed by the assessee. This precedent is directly applicable, as the DR in this case failed to demonstrate any incriminating material found during the search that would justify reassessment. The DR’s argument that non-responsive vendors constitute incriminating material is speculative, as no specific evidence of bogus transactions was cited. The findings in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), thus, reinforce the AR’s position that completed assessments should remain intact when no new incriminating material is discovered.

10.3. In the case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench dealt with the scope of section 153A if the Act assessments where no incriminating material was discovered in a search. The Bench held that completed assessments for years where section 143(2) of the Act notices were not issued (rendering them “unabated”) cannot be disturbed under section 153A of the Act unless incriminating evidence is found. In this case, gift deeds and other routine documents were discovered, which were already disclosed in the returns filed by the assessee. The ITAT ruled that such documents do not qualify as incriminating material, as they do not indicate any undisclosed income or irregularities that warrant reassessment. The case of Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) is especially pertinent here, as it involved a similar scenario where no new incriminating evidence was found during the search. In the present case, the AR demonstrated that the purchases and vendors in question were part of the regular accounting, and no list of unverified or and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bogus vendors was discovered during the search. Following the Vijaykumar D. Agarwal(supra) decision, the lack of such incriminating evidence strengthens the case for allowing additional ground.

10.4. In the case of Saumya Construction (387 ITR 529), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court examined the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act and reiterated that for reassessment in unabated years, additions must be based on specific incriminating material found during the search. The court held that in the absence of such evidence, additions to income disclosed in the regular books cannot be made. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under section 153A of the Act is contingent on the existence of incriminating material discovered during a search. This precedent further validates the AR’s stance that, without incriminating material, the assessments for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 (including assessment made u/s 153A of the Act relating to A.Y. 2008-09) should remain intact. The DR’s reliance on alleged non-verifiable vendors is insufficient without supporting evidence from the search documents, making Saumya Construction (supra) a binding authority favouring the assessee.

10.5. Based on the detailed discussion of these judicial precedents, it is clear that the additional ground raised by the assessee is well-founded. The consistent judicial view from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, particularly the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, confirms that in the absence of incriminating material, completed or unabated assessments under section 153A of the Act cannot be reopened solely based on routine or previously disclosed information. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 10.6. Accordingly, we find that the section 153A of the Act assessment for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11, where no incriminating material was found, is invalid. The assessments for these unabated years are quashed, and the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

11.2. Upon persusal of the CIT(A)’s order, we note that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal on the basis that no assessment proceedings were pending on the date of the search, thereby resulting in non-abatement of the assessment for the relevant assessment year, as per the second proviso to Section 153A(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) further observed that the AO had not based the addition on any incriminating material seized during the search. This is corroborated by the AO’s Remand Report, which remained silent on whether any seized material substantiated the addition. The CIT(A), relying on the principles established by the jurisdictional ITAT and High Court, held that the AO’s action was not justified, allowing the appeal accordingly. Consequently, since the addition was not grounded in seized incriminating material, the CIT(A) and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

15 deemed it unnecessary to address the merits of the addition, maintaining that the assessed income would remain unaltered post the CIT(A)’s order.

11.3. Based on the detailed analysis in preceding paras, we uphold the CIT(A)’s decision. Section 153A of the Act assessments for non-abated years are limited to additions based on seized incriminating material. As no such material was cited to justify the additions, the CIT(A) acted within legal boundaries by allowing the assessee’s appeal. Accordingly, the revenue’s consolidated legal ground lacks merit and is dismissed.

Grounds relating to deduction u/s 80IA of the Act 12.1. Following is the tabulated deduction u/s 80IA as a ground of appeal under respective appeals: – Assessment Amount No. Year Disallowed (Assessee) (Revenue) (Rs.) by AO and allowed by CIT(A) 2007-08 43,35,594 ITA ITA 2815/Ahd/2011 3269/Ahd/2011 2008-09 4,31,66,071 ITA ITA 2036/Ahd/2011 2353/Ahd/2014 2009-10 2,09,00,080 ITA IT(SS)A 1746/Ahd/2016 246/Ahd/2016 2010-11 27,72,94,641 ITA IT(SS)A 1747/Ahd/2016 247/Ahd/2016 2011-12 14,44,88,979 ITA ITA 1748/Ahd/2016 1748/Ahd/2016 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

16 2012-13 9,26,51,299 ITA ITA 1749/Ahd/2016 1749/Ahd/2016 2013-14 14,46,99,134 - ITA 796/Ahd/2018 2014-15 8,32,03,602 - ITA 797/Ahd/2018 2015-16 8,92,09,090 - ITA 1528/Ahd/2018 12.2. Under the grounds relating to deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the Revenue has consistently argued that the assessee does not qualify for the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as their activities fall under works contracts rather than infrastructure development, which is an essential eligibility criterion. The Revenue asserts that the assessee’s role is primarily contractual and does not meet the requirements of a developer under Section 80IA of the Act. They refer to the Explanation to Section 80IA of the Act, which explicitly excludes entities engaged solely in works contracts from claiming the deduction. For each relevant assessment year, the Revenue has challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IA of the Act deduction, claiming that CIT(A) failed to recognize the contractual nature of the assessee’s work and incorrectly interpreted the law in allowing the deduction.

12.3. The assessee contends that it meets the necessary developer criteria under Section 80IA of the Act, as its projects involve infrastructure development and are not limited to mere contractual work. In cases where CIT(A) partially upheld the deduction, the assessee argues that CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction on the entire income of eligible undertakings. The assessee maintains that the deduction should be calculated based on the and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

17 total income assessed after accounting for any additions or disallowances. The assessee emphasizes compliance with Section 80IA of the Act provisions, such as maintaining separate books of accounts and fulfilling other operational and statutory criteria, positioning itself as a qualifying infrastructure developer.

12.4. The core dispute lies in the interpretation of whether the assessee’s role constitutes infrastructure development or merely a works contract. The Revenue relies on the contractual nature of certain agreements to classify the assessee as ineligible, while the assessee counters that its activities qualify under the broader definition of development for infrastructure projects.

• The AO emphasized that the ownership of the infrastructure project remained with MPSH, and the assessee was neither involved in the project’s conception nor responsible for its development and operation. The assessee’s involvement was restricted to executing pre-defined tasks in accordance with the specifications laid out by MPSH. • The AO pointed out that the assessee filled tenders and obtained work contracts as a contractor, not as a developer which highlighted that the assessee’s role was limited to completing pre-defined tasks specified in a contract, rather than undertaking comprehensive development responsibilities. This distinction, according to the AO, disqualified the assessee from claiming deductions intended for infrastructure developers. • The AO highlighted that the assessee executed specific, well-defined civil construction activities according to the project plans and specifications created by MPSH. Moreover, MPSH supervised the work, suggesting that the assessee had no role in planning or designing the project. The AO interpreted this as further evidence that the assessee was merely a contractor rather than a developer responsible for the entire infrastructure project. • The AO referenced a contractual clause in the agreement (Volume-II, Section VI - Technical Specifications), which required the assessee to seek clarification on specifications from MPSH engineers before proceeding with any work. According to the AO, this clause confirmed that the assessee’s role is purely executory, with limited autonomy, thus reinforcing the classification of the assessee as a contractor rather than a developer. • The AO contended that the assessee failed to prove involvement in the project's design, planning, or financing. The AO emphasized that these responsibilities are essential characteristics of a developer. Instead, the assessee merely executed tasks based on instructions from MPSH. • The AO highlighted that the income derived by the assessee was in the nature of contract receipts, as evidenced by the Profit and Loss Account and further affirmed by the assessee’s registration with the sales tax authorities as a "work contractor" in both Gujarat and Madhya and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

19 Pradesh. Such contract receipts, in the view of the AO, did not qualify for deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act, which is intended for entities deriving income directly from the development, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure projects. • The AO noted that the assessee did not make any significant financial investment in the project, as shown by the RA bills and TDS certificates. The lack of financial risk or investment suggested that the assessee did not assume the typical risks associated with a developer's role. The AO observed that payments received by the assessee were subject to tax deduction under section 194C of the Act, which applies to payments to contractors which further indicated that the assessee was operating as a contractor, not as a developer. • The AO referred to a contractual clause specifying that the assessee was responsible only for rectifying defective work at its own cost. This limited liability indicated that the assessee did not bear the full risk of project development, as would be expected of a developer. • The AO cited the Finance Act of 2007, which retrospectively amended section 80-IA(13) of the Act to clarify that persons executing works contracts do not qualify for section 80-IA benefits. The amendment made it explicit that only developers, not contractors, are eligible. • The AO referenced the Finance Minister’s clarification in the Finance Bill, 2007, which stated that the tax benefit was intended to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure development, not to provide deductions to contractors merely executing construction. • The AO cited M/s. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Private Limited vs. ACIT, (ITA No.1408 & 1409/PN/2003) where the Tribunal clarified that the benefit under section 80-IA(4) applies to those developing the entire infrastructure project, not merely executing a part of it.

13.1. The DR further stated that the tender documents are important source of identifying the scope of work which are not placed on record by the assessee. The DR placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench in case and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

20 of ACIT(OSD)-I, Circle -4 Ahmedabad Vs. M.S.Khurana Engineering Ltd. (ITA No. 2308/Ahd/2011 dated 19-04-2024). The DR also placed reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in case of M/s NEC NCC Maytas – JV Vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1), Hyderabad (ITA No. 430 to 432/Hyd/2018 dated 12- 05-2021)

13.2. The Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee, submitted the list of projects executed by the assessee during the assessment years under consideration. The same is reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity: –

Sr. Assessment Projects No. Year 1 2007-08 - Madhya Pradesh Road Sector - Storm Water Drainage System 2 2008-09 - Madhya Pradesh Road Sector - Storm Water Drainage System 3 2009-10 - M.P. State Highway- Badnawar to Thandla - Pimpri Chhindwad Municipal Corporation Flyover 4 2010-11 - Supplying, Laying, Jointing, Testing and Commissioning of Distribution Network in Bhopal - RCC Storm Water Drainage System - Flyover at Bhosari - Madleshwar-Karwad Maharashtra Border Road 5 2011-12 - Pipeline Project of Bhopal Municipal Corporation - Pimpri Chhindwad Municipal Corporation Flyover - IMC-3 Indore Municipal Corporation - Water Pipeline Project - Flyover at Panvel Bus Depot 6 2012-13 - IMC-2 Indore Municipal Corporation - Pune Nasik Highway and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

- Flyover at Panvel Bus Depot - Pimpri Chhindwad Flyover - Nagar Sevasadan, Nadiad Water Supply 7 2013-14 - Flyover at Panvel Bus Depot - Spine Road at Pimpri Chhindwad New Town Authority - Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority for flyover at Bhiwandi 8 2014-15 - Flyover at Panvel Bus Depot - Spine Road at Pimpri Chhindwad New Town Authority - Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority for flyover at Bhiwandi 9 2015-16 - Flyover at Jalgaon - Spine Road at Pimpri Chhindwad New Town Authority - Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority for flyover at Bhiwandi 13.3. The AR pointed out that some of the projects executed by the assessee were executed under JnNURM Programme and as a condition of tender the assessee was required to pay Security Deposit. To support the AR pointed out the copy of Letter Of Intent (LOI) from Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation requiring the assessee to give security deposit of Rs.1,67,29,120/-, (being 5% of contract value) in the form of Unequivocal Bank Guarantee issued by approved banker. The AR further pointed out that the LOI also specified 2% retention money. The AR placed on record various letters of intent /allotment of projects relating to the above tabulated projects along with the agreements. The AR pointed out that the Bank Guarantee issued by the assessee itself is investment in the project assuming the risk for the reward, therefore the AO’s contention that the assessee has not assumed any risk is not correct. The AR relied on the order of CIT(A) and pointed out and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

22 that the CIT(A) in his order has dealt with various points observed by the AO. We note those points observed by the CIT(A) and for the sake of clarity we summarise them as follows – • The CIT(A) began by explaining the intent behind Section 80IA of the Act, which was introduced to encourage investment in infrastructure by offering deductions on profits from qualifying projects. This section provides the statutory framework for claiming deductions, focusing on projects that develop, operate, or maintain infrastructure facilities like roads, bridges, and water systems. • A substantial part of the order addresses the difference between "developer" and "contractor" within the context of Section 80IA(4). The CIT(A) emphasised that an entity involved in developing an infrastructure facility qualifies as a "developer" and is therefore eligible for the deduction. The CIT(A) asserted that the term "developer" should be broadly interpreted and includes entities that may not operate or maintain the project but have taken on significant responsibilities in developing it. • The CIT(A) outlined the legislative history of Section 80IA, discussing how successive Finance Acts (notably in 2000 and 2001) expanded the deduction to benefit enterprises only engaged in developing, not necessarily operating or maintaining, infrastructure projects. The 2000 amendment, in particular, introduced flexibility by making the terms "developing," "operating," and "maintaining" mutually exclusive, allowing entities to qualify for the deduction even if they only perform one of these activities. • The CIT(A) acknowledged the assessee’s contention that the projects undertaken by the assessee, such as road rehabilitation and stormwater drainage systems, etc. required the assessee to deploy significant resources, undertake planning, mobilize equipment, and ensure quality control. The CIT(A) concluded that this showed the assessee’s active involvement in infrastructure development, going beyond a mere contractual execution. The CIT(A) also acknowledged that the assessee bore substantial risks, including performance guarantees, liquidated damages for delays, and retention money until the project was completed satisfactorily. The CIT(A) noted that these factors and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

23 indicate that the assessee is assuming responsibilities that align more with a developer than a contractor. • The CIT(A) referred CBDT Circular No. 4/2010, which supports the view that widening existing roads (as the assessee did) constitutes a new infrastructure facility under Section 80IA. • The CIT(A) addressed amendments introduced in 2009, specifically Explanation 13, which excluded entities executing works contracts from Section 80IA deductions. The CIT(A) noted assessee’s contention that the retrospective application of this amendment unfairly revokes a right they previously relied on, breaching the principle of promissory estoppel. The CIT(A) acknowledged this argument, noting that legislative amendments should not unfairly penalize taxpayers who have already acted based on the prior interpretation of the law.

13.4. The AR referred the decision of Rajkot Bench in case of M/s. Tarmat Bel (JV) vs. ITO (ITA 1111/RJT/2010 dated 23-09-2010) which the CIT(A) acknowledged along with other judicial precedents. These decisions collectively emphasized that the taxpayer, who is actively engaged in development work through mobilizing resources and taking on construction responsibilities, qualified as a developer.

13.5. The AR also referred to the written submission made by the assessee wherein the assessee explained its role, responsibility and assumed risk in executing the projects with reference to the para 13.1 of the decision of Rajkot Bench in case of Katira Construction Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 88 & 89/RJT/2015 and dated 30-07-2020). The AR placed reliance on the decision of ACIT Central Circle – 1(1) Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd. (ITA No. 1892/Ahd/2013 dated 28-06-2023), where the Co-ordinate Bench decided in favour of the assessee and the and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue (Tax Appeal No. 786 of 2023).

13.6. The DR, in rejoinder, stated that the decision in the case of M S Khurana Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) dealt with the decision in the case of Montecarlo Construction Ltd.(supra).

14.2. Full Responsibility for Execution and Completion (Clause 13.1(a) in Katira): According to Katira, a developer must assume comprehensive responsibility for the project, encompassing all stages from inception through completion. In Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court emphasized that the developer’s role includes end-to-end responsibility, requiring the entity to manage and execute work beyond construction. Here, the assessee’s responsibilities in the MPSH project extended to all aspects of project design, execution, and handover, mirroring the obligations seen in Montecarlo Ltd., where the court upheld that an entity with such overarching responsibilities qualifies as a developer.

14.3. Operational Autonomy and Approval Requirements (Clause 13.1(a) in Katira): Katira states that developers may require limited government approvals without negating their status as developers. In Montecarlo Ltd., the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reinforced this, noting that operational autonomy within government contracts does not disqualify an entity from developer status. The assessee here maintained autonomy, bearing control over all phases of execution, despite needing certain government approvals. This autonomy, coupled with significant managerial duties, aligns with both Katira and Montecarlo Ltd., supporting the developer classification. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

26 14.4. Development of Pre-Existing Infrastructure (Clause 13.1(b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with the development activities recognized in Montecarlo Ltd..

14.5. Employment and Management of Skilled Workforce (Clause 13.1(c) in Katira): Both Katira and Montecarlo Ltd. emphasize that developers must recruit and manage skilled personnel. In this case, the assessee engaged project managers, engineers, and other skilled professionals, taking responsibility for all manpower requirements. This mirrors the approach upheld in Montecarlo Ltd., where the Co-ordinate Bench observed that managing personnel indicated significant managerial control— characteristics of a developer.

14.6. Technical Know-How and Expertise (Clause 13.1(d) in Katira): The Katira and Montecarlo Ltd. decisions both require that developers possess technical expertise, deploying skills essential to infrastructure development. The assessee’s experience in similar projects and its use of technical knowledge in the MPSH project aligns well with the standards set in these decisions, showing that it actively contributed specialized expertise to the project. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

27 14.7. Financial Responsibility and Risk Bearing (Clause 13.1(e) in Katira): As outlined in both Katira and Montecarlo Ltd., developers assume entrepreneurial and financial risks. The assessee here arranged financing independently, managed delays, and assumed liability for project risks, including property damage. The Gujarat High Court in Montecarlo Ltd. explicitly noted that a developer’s financial risk-taking is central to eligibility under Section 80IA(4). By assuming such risks, the assessee demonstrates alignment with the financial responsibilities defined for developers.

14.8. Supply and Testing of Materials (Clause 13.1(f) in Katira): In Katira and similarly in Montecarlo Ltd., developers are expected to source quality materials independently, without reliance on government supply. The assessee complied with quality standards under Clause 36.1 of the Scope of Work, sourcing materials and overseeing quality control, much like the operations in Montecarlo Ltd., where the Co-ordinate bench observed material procurement as an indicator of developer status.

14.9. Provision and Use of Machinery (Clause 13.1(g) in Katira): Katira and Montecarlo Ltd. require developers to supply necessary equipment. The assessee in this case used its machinery, including specialized equipment, fulfilling the developer’s responsibility of machinery provision. This approach resonates with Montecarlo Ltd., where similar machinery use supported the court’s conclusion in favour of developer status.

14.10. Insurance and Comprehensive Risk Coverage (Clause 13.1(h) in Katira): The Katira guidelines mandate insurance and risk management, as supported by Montecarlo Ltd., where the court noted that developers must and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 bear all project risks. The assessee’s insurance coverage throughout the project meets this requirement, reinforcing its role as a developer.

14.11. Liability for Quality and Defects (Clause 13.1(i) in Katira): Katira and Montecarlo Ltd. indicate that developers bear responsibility for defects within the liability period. Here, the assessee was accountable for quality assurance, mirroring the obligations in Montecarlo Ltd. and further supporting the claim to developer status.

14.12. Timely Completion and Liquidated Damages (Clause 13.1(j) in Katira): As both Katira and Montecarlo Ltd. decisions emphasize, developers bear risks for delays. The assessee in the MPSH project faced penalties for untimely completion, demonstrating adherence to the responsibilities outlined in these decisions.

14.13. Public Safety and Environmental Standards (Clause 13.1(k) and 13.1(l) in Katira): Both Katira and Montecarlo Ltd. mandate safety and environmental compliance, which the assessee fulfilled through extensive safety protocols and environmental protections, aligning with the standards expected of a developer.

16.1. After perusing the CIT(A)’s comprehensive analysis, we find that the CIT(A) rightly interpreted the assessee’s role as a developer under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The CIT(A)’s reliance on Circular No. 4/2010, along with precedents from rulings of various Benches of the Tribunal and Hon’ble Supreme Court guidance, provides a robust legal basis to affirm the developer status of the assessee.

16.2 The financial statements of the assessee, spanning Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08 to 2015-16, provide a comprehensive view of the business's financial and operational profile, reflecting the nature, scope, and risk involved in its activities. The financial parameters across these years serve as indicators of the business's state of affairs, highlighting the responsibilities, risk assumptions, and commitments undertaken by the assessee in infrastructure projects. Analyzing these parameters aids in understanding and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

32 the overall risk profile of the assessee and substantively differentiating a developer from a contractor. The following tabulated financial parameters across AYs 2007-08 to 2011-12 (to the extent comparable data is available in the paper book) underscore the risk elements characteristic of the assessee:-

A.Y. - > 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Parameter Total Income 50,627.44 94,493.99 1,29,840.91 1,31,493.67 1,39,384.92 (Rs. in Lacs) Net Profit 1,605.47 3,071.59 3,676.12 3,970.17 4,179.23 After Tax (PAT) PAT to Total 3.17% 3.25% 2.83% 3.02% 3.00% Income (%) Total Debt 6,286.70 11,279.60 19,643.82 16,990.93 18,666.31 (Secured + Unsecured) Debt-to- 0.51 0.65 0.96 0.68 0.5 Equity Ratio Current Ratio 1.58 1.3 1.45 1.44 1.35 Net Block of 9,765.32 18,795.92 22,021.67 20,966.14 22,604.22 Fixed Assets Capital Work 0 148.87 203.07 778.33 511.67 in Progress (CWIP) Inventory 17.23 8.88 16.19 19.58 10.56 Turnover (Times) Receivables 2.99 3.3 3.03 2.65 2.11 Turnover (Times) Cash and 4,156.87 1,626.06 1,174.60 1,551.94 2,717.37 Bank Balance and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 16.3. The financial parameters above reflect the overall business risk associated with the business of the assessee. Given the characteristics of a developer, the business risk profile illustrates the following critical points:- Financial and Leverage Risk: • The company’s debt-to-equity ratio, peaking at 0.96 in 2009, demonstrates substantial leverage, indicative of a developer taking on significant financial obligations to fund long-term projects. This high leverage level aligns with the financial risk a developer assumes, as developers typically engage in substantial upfront investment and long project cycles. The subsequent decrease in leverage suggests strategic risk management, reinforcing the financial commitment typical of developers. Operational Risk: • Low profit margins, fluctuating between 2.83% and 3.25%, highlight the cost-intensive nature of infrastructure projects and the narrow margins within which developers operate. The company’s low profitability indicates a commitment to long-term project sustainability rather than short-term gains, consistent with a developer’s operational profile. • The inconsistency in inventory turnover and high receivables suggest challenges typical of developers, who often face delayed payments linked to project milestones and demand cycles. This delay in cash inflows impacts liquidity but is an inherent risk in large-scale infrastructure development projects. Liquidity Risk: • Moderate liquidity risk is evident from the current ratio trends and fluctuating cash balances. As a developer, the company’s liquidity is impacted by the cyclical nature of project payments, reflecting the working capital constraints associated with extended project timelines and staggered cash flows. • The rising receivables turnover time, declining cash balances, and high current liabilities also indicate reliance on project completions and customer payments, a common characteristic of developers with substantial liquidity requirements. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 Market and Profitability Risk: • The company’s primary income is derived from contract receipts i.e the projects, which are contingent on project completion and client certification. This dependency exposes the company to market and client-related risks, such as changes in demand, government policies, and competitive pressures in the infrastructure sector. • Low profitability margins further suggest sensitivity to cost fluctuations and competitive pricing pressures, which is common among developers in a highly competitive sector.

16.4. We have also noted the off-balance sheet items of liabilities i.e. Contingent liabilities and observe that there's a significant increase in contingent liabilities, especially in guarantees for joint ventures and disputed tax and royalty demands, which indicate growing exposure to financial and operational risks.

16.5. From a business risk and reward perspective, contingent liabilities are critical considerations for a developer aiming to maximize returns and maintain financial stability. Bank guarantees represent a significant cash flow risk; if invoked, they could strain liquidity, disrupt project timelines, and delay revenue recognition, ultimately affecting project profitability. Similarly, guarantees provided to subsidiaries expose the developer to financial risk if a subsidiary encounters difficulties, creating unplanned liabilities that can reduce overall project profitability and erode return on investment. Joint venture guarantees add an additional layer of risk by tying the developer’s financial health to that of its partners; any default or underperformance by a joint venture partner could disrupt project financing and jeopardize the project's timeline, impacting expected returns. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 16.6. Based on the financial parameters and business risk elements, it is apparent that the assessee operates as a developer rather than merely a contractor. The risk profile—characterized by substantial leverage, operational responsibility, liquidity constraints, and market dependency— supports the classification of the assessee as a developer under Section 80IA of the Act. By assuming extensive financial, operational, and market risks, the assessee aligns with the statutory definition of a developer, undertaking comprehensive responsibilities in infrastructure creation.

16.7. The financial statements serve as indicators of the business's nature, scope, and the substantive responsibilities borne by the assessee, which collectively affirm that the assessee’s activities qualify under the broader framework of infrastructure development as envisaged under Section 80IA of the Act. This analysis will provide the foundation for determining eligibility and distinguishing the assessee's role in alignment with legislative intent, statutory provisions, and relevant judicial precedents, ultimately supporting the assessee's position for developer status.

16.8. Furthermore, in line with the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in the case of Montecarlo Ltd. v. Principal CIT, we note that Section 80IA(4) of the Act should be interpreted liberally to support the infrastructure development mandate. Montecarlo Ltd. affirmed that an entity operating under a government contract does not lose developer status if it assumes the independent roles and responsibilities associated with developing infrastructure. The assessee’s case here mirrors Montecarlo Ltd., where the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court upheld deductions for infrastructure developers who mobilized resources, bore risks, and undertook comprehensive and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 development duties. Given the binding nature of this jurisdictional precedent, we respectfully follow Montecarlo Ltd., concurring with the CIT(A) that the assessee qualifies as a developer entitled to deductions under Section 80IA(4) of the Act.

16.9. In view of the above, we find that the CIT(A) rightly allowed the assessee’s claim under Section 80IA(4) of the Act based on its function as a developer in infrastructure projects. The CIT(A)’s reliance on statutory interpretation, judicial precedents, and CBDT guidance provides a sound basis for affirming the assessee’s eligibility for the deduction.

16.10. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeals on the s relating to deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act are dismissed, and the orders of the CIT(A) granting the assessee deductions under Section 80IA(4) of the Act are upheld.

16.11. Under the s related to 80IA of the Act, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act based on the "total income of the eligible business as finally computed and assessed by the AO," which includes adjustments arising from additions or disallowances made during assessment.

16.12. The AR argued that under Section 80IA of the Act, the deduction should be computed based on the final income of the eligible undertaking after all adjustments, additions, and disallowances are made by the AO. The AR also contended that this interpretation aligns with the legislative intent of providing deductions based on the “total income” as assessed, rather than on the income computed prior to adjustments. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 16.13. Under Section 80IA(1) of the Act, the deduction is allowed in respect of "profits and gains derived from the eligible business." Section 80IA(5) of the Act further stipulates that for computing the deduction, the eligible business is treated as the “only source of income,” and income attributable to the eligible undertaking should be calculated in isolation. However, judicial interpretations have clarified that the term “total income” for deduction purposes is often based on the final assessed income, reflecting the eligible business’s actual income post-assessment adjustments.

16.14. Upon examining the provisions and judicial precedents, we agree with the assessee’s interpretation that Section 80IA of the Act deductions should apply to the total income of the eligible unit as assessed by the AO, including any additions or disallowances made during the assessment process. The legislative intent of Section 80IA of the Act is to incentivize infrastructure development and industrial growth by providing deductions on income attributable to eligible undertakings. This objective is best achieved by allowing deductions on the income computed as per the final assessment, which captures the true profits of the eligible business. The CIT(A) should have directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80IA based on the final assessed income of the eligible undertaking, after considering all additions or disallowances. Accordingly, the AO is directed to recompute the Section 80IA deduction on the final assessed income of the eligible industrial undertaking. This ensures that the deduction accurately reflects the undertaking's profits, consistent with statutory provisions and judicial interpretations. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

Grounds Relating to Addition on the basis of Gross Profit Margin due to rejection of books of accounts –

Type of Ground Disallowance (Rs.) Appeal No. Gross Profit Addition 2008- ITA 24,43,00,129 Revenue 4 & 5 related to 09 245/Ahd/2016 Vendor/Subcontractor Transactions 2009- ITA 24,00,14,120 Revenue 1 & 2 10 246/Ahd/2016 2009- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 10 1746/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties 2010- ITA 10,57,78,781 Revenue 1 & 2 11 247/Ahd/2016 2010- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 11 1747/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties 2011- ITA 84,23,956 Revenue 1 & 2 12 248/Ahd/2016

2011- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 12 1748/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties 2012- ITA 42,91,02,036 Revenue 1 & 2 13 249/Ahd/2016 2012- IT(SS) A Confirmation Assessee 1 & 2 13 1749/Ahd/2016 of addition on account of 7 parties and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 18.1. Several appeals across AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 feature the ground related to gross profit addition. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the gross profit additions made by the AO on the grounds that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to verify transactions with subcontractors and vendors. The Revenue maintained that the AO’s estimated gross profit additions were justified due to the lack of verifiable documentation. The assessee argued that they had adequately supported these transactions through documentary evidence and that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. In some cases, the assessee also argued that any addition, if warranted, should be limited only to the gross profit element. Disallowance of purchases was primarily noted in AY 2013- 14 and other subsequent years. The Revenue contended that the purchases were not substantiated by sufficient documentation and treated some purchases as bogus. The AO disallowed the expenses related to these purchases, questioning their authenticity and alleging that the transactions lacked the necessary supporting evidence. The assessee argued that all purchases were genuine, backed by proper documentation, and were necessary for its business operations. The assessee also provided ‘account payee cheques’ and other records as evidence of these transactions to counter the Revenue's claims.

18.2. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s.153A of the Act, the AO detailed the suspected method of expense inflation through fictitious payments to subcontractors. The AO suspected this inflation occurred via “bogus expenses,” especially through subcontractors, many of whom could not be verified or traced. The AO analysed data from systems, such as, ITDMS, AST (Assessment Information System), and TDS records, cross- and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 referencing this data with other government records (e.g., Ministry of Corporate Affairs). This analysis raised concerns that several subcontractors had failed to report income from the assessee or had not filed returns at all, questioning their legitimacy. The AO further pursued verification through questionnaires and physical summons issued under Section 131. The findings for A.Y. 2008-09 were grouped as follows:

• Non-verifiable Vendors: Of 102 vendors, only 46 were presented with partial documentation, leaving 56 subcontractors (listed in Annexure C-1) as non-verifiable. These vendors accounted for substantial subcontracting costs amounting to Rs.20.69 crores. • Non-filers and PAN Issues: Of 411 vendors, 92 failed to file income tax returns or present PAN details, accounting for another Rs.36.08 crores in expenses (Annexure D-1). • Non-responsive to Summons: Another set of vendors, including those in Annexure F-1, were either non-responsive to summons or claimed to have no dealings with the assessee. Notable subcontractors explicitly denied doing any work for the assessee, casting further doubt on the authenticity of transactions amounting to Rs.11.87 crores. • Specific Cases of False Claims: Notably, vendors like M/s Top Bricks and Sand Suppliers were implicated in a separate investigation by the Mumbai Sales Tax Department, where the vendor admitted to providing only accommodation entries rather than actual material supplies. This added to suspicions of bogus purchases, totalling to Rs.17.78 lakhs. 18.3. The assessee submitted bills, TDS details, and some vendor confirmations. They argued that the listed vendors were authentic and had received payments for legitimate subcontracting work. For some vendors, discrepancies were attributed to identical vendor names or errors in record- keeping. The AO found these explanations inadequate, emphasizing that legitimate businesses would have established records, PAN, and tax returns. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 The AO rejected these documents, noting that many vendors’ tax filings, addresses, and business activities could not be validated, and that claimed transactions lacked independent corroboration. For A.Y. 2008-09 the AO noted that with Rs.105.36 crore in unverified expenses (covering 176 sub- contractors and Rs.1.78 crore in bogus purchases), the assessee’s books did not meet the statutory standards for completeness and accuracy. The AO invoked section 145(3) of the Act on the grounds that the expenses listed could not be verified as genuine and concluded that the books were unreliable, and it would be inappropriate to compute income based on these accounts. Given the rejection of the assessee’s accounts, the AO applied a comparative approach using Gross Profit (GP) margins from similar companies. Six companies in the same field reported average GP margins of 22.89%, against which the AO estimated a revised GP of 22.89% for the assessee. This estimation approach resulted in an additional GP for each assessment year enlisted initially.

18.4. The CIT(A), for the A.Y. 2008-09, noted that the AO failed to distinguish between vendors that were partially compliant and those that were not. For example, while the AO acknowledged that 319 out of 411 vendors (Annexure-D) filed returns, he still labelled this entire group as suspicious. The CIT(A) identified that the AO considered some compliance from vendors as adequate evidence but dismissed other comparable evidence without justification. The CIT(A) explained that rejecting books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Act requires the AO to pinpoint specific defects that make the accounts unreliable. However, in this case, the AO’s rejection was based primarily on suspicion and unverified documentation rather than clear accounting discrepancies or statutory non-compliance. The CIT(A) and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 highlighted that the books had been audited under Section 44AB of the Act and followed standard accounting principles. Given these facts, the CIT(A) questioned the AO’s authority to reject the books merely because the AO suspected inflated expenses. The CIT(A) examined the legality of additions made under Section 153A of the Act, which applies when assessments are completed based on incriminating material found during search and seizure operations. The CIT(A) observed that in this case, the assessment year in question was not “abated” (pending) at the time of search, meaning that any additions made must have been based solely on incriminating evidence found during the search. After reviewing the AO’s records, the CIT(A) found no reference to any incriminating material obtained during the search that could substantiate the addition. Without such material, the CIT(A) concluded that the AO lacked a legal basis for revising the income under Section 153A of the Act. The CIT(A) supported its conclusions by citing various judgments, including Kabul Chawla and Saumya Construction P. Ltd., which underscore that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under Section 153A of the Act unless supported by incriminating evidence unearthed during a search. The CIT(A) obtained a remand report from the AO to verify whether the assessment was based on any seized material. The AO’s report did not indicate any reliance on seized or incriminating material, leading the CIT(A) to affirm that the assessment revisions were speculative and unsupported. The CIT(A) ultimately concluded that the AO’s assessment was unjustified both procedurally and substantively, as it was based neither on specific defects in accounting practices nor on incriminating materials from the search. The CIT(A) indicated that, without prejudice to its findings on the legal framework, the AO’s approach also disregarded ample evidence provided by the assessee, including TDS records, payment proofs, and and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 vendor confirmations. Thus, even on factual grounds, the AO’s rejection appeared unreasonable.

18.5. For the Assessment Years 2009-10 onwards, the CIT(A) focused on the inconsistencies observed in the AO’s treatment of evidence furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that the AO accepted confirmations and refund status for 33 vendors as genuine, along with refund evidence for 286 vendors from the NSDL website. Despite this, for a subset of vendors, the AO rejected similar types of evidence without providing adequate reasoning or distinguishing factors, creating inconsistency in the assessment process. The CIT(A) observed that the AO’s approach was arbitrary as similar evidence was accepted for some vendors but rejected for others, often without providing clear justification. The CIT(A) found that if evidence was accepted for certain vendors, identical evidence for other vendors should logically be treated similarly, unless the AO had specific reasons for differentiation. After reviewing the evidence provided, the CIT(A) upheld the gross profit addition for certain vendors due to the lack of satisfactory evidence supporting the transactions with these parties. The addition was confirmed for the following parties where the assessee either failed to provide adequate evidence or the AO found the transactions unverifiable:

• Subramani • Saroj Kumar Sinha • Khandelwal Traders • Ajaykumar Ganesh Yadav • Top Bricks and Sand Suppliers • Jyoti K. Chakraborty and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

44 • Kumar Khanderao Thite 18.6. For these vendors, either the assessee did not furnish confirmations or refund statuses, or the evidence was not considered sufficient to establish the genuineness of the transactions.

of the assessee.

20. The AR stated that at various stage of the assessment proceedings the assessee submitted various details like bill copies, vouchers giving nature of services provided, ledger copy, confirmation of accounts along with the detailed list of parties including names, addresses, PANs, amount of transaction, mobile No., etc. The AR also stated that the list of vendors who are regularly submitting return of income was submitted to the AO and and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 refunds have also been issued to some of the vendors. The AR submitted that out of 595 vendors the assessee has submitted details of 571 parties as required by the AO. The AR further submitted that the assessee is a listed company having huge vendor base and the AO issued notices to only few parties and considering the total number of parties this number is very miniscule. The AR took us through the details submitted to AO during the assessment proceedings.

20.1. Regarding the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of vendors enlisted above, the AR submitted that the assessee has already submitted detailed submission relating to these parties. In case of Saroj Kumar Sinha, it was submitted that this person with PAN – BPKPS4715K has never worked for the assessee company and in case of ‘Subramani’ the details like copy of work order, bills, ledger copies, copy of PAN and address were submitted during the course of assessment proceedings on 29-11-2013, 20-12- 2013 and 20-01-2014. Regarding Khandelwal Traders, the AR explained that the notice was sent to party with same name from Ratlam and details have been submitted in case of Khandelwal Traders from Delhi from whom steel was purchased by the assessee. The AR further clarified that the assessee submitted details of status of refund issued in case of other parties along with other details. The AR took us through the various lists and confirmed that the names of these parties are appearing in the list of details already provided.

21.1. The AO rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) on the grounds of unverifiable vendor/subcontractor transactions and applied an estimated GP margin of 22.89%, resulting in significant GP additions. However, we find that the AO’s rejection was based primarily on suspicion rather than identified defects in the accounting records. There are many Judicial precedents which clearly mandate that books of accounts cannot be rejected solely on suspicion; specific and concrete accounting defects must be demonstrated. The CIT(A) appropriately deleted the additions, noting that the AO’s approach lacked consistency, as he accepted similar evidence for some vendors while rejecting identical evidence for others without clear justification.

21.2. For Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, which were unabated at the time of the search, additions under Section 153A of the Act are permitted only if they are based on incriminating material found during the search operation. Judicial precedents establish that completed assessments cannot be reopened or disturbed under Section 153A of the Act in the absence of new, substantive evidence discovered during the search. In this case, the remand report from the AO confirmed that the additions were based on post-search analysis rather than on any incriminating material and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 found during the search. We hold that the AO’s additions in these unabated assessment years are legally unsustainable. We uphold the CIT(A)’s deletion of these additions, as they lack a legal basis.

21.3. The assessee raised grounds challenging the confirmation of additions by the CIT(A) for transactions with 7 specific vendors. The AO had disallowed these expenses, alleging that transactions with these vendors were unverifiable, and therefore inflated the assessee’s expenses by adding the corresponding amounts to the Gross Profit (GP). The CIT(A) upheld this addition on the grounds that the evidence provided by the assessee was inadequate to substantiate the authenticity of transactions with these parties. We have considered the arguments presented by both the Revenue and the Assessee in relation to these transactions. The assessee submitted various documents to support the genuineness of transactions with these 7 vendors, which included bills and invoices for the services provided by the vendors, payment proofs, such as bank statements evidencing payments made via ‘account payee cheques’, Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) records to establish that tax was deducted on payments made to these vendors, PAN details, addresses. We observe that these documents were crucial evidence supporting the assessee’s claim that these were genuine business expenses. The AO accepted similar types of evidence (such as invoices, TDS, and confirmations) for certain vendors but rejected identical documentation for the 7 vendors in question without providing a clear or cogent reason for this distinction.

21.4. We note that selective acceptance and rejection of evidence for vendors without valid justification is arbitrary and lacks a consistent approach, and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

48 especially when the nature of evidence provided was identical across vendors. In this case, the AO did not present any such incriminating material to substantiate the disallowance of expenses for these 7 vendors. The AO’s findings were instead based on a general suspicion that the vendors were non-genuine. The rejection of the expenses related to these 7 vendors was based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence of inflated or fictitious expenses. Judicial precedents emphasize that additions based on GP estimation or disallowance of expenses require clear defects or discrepancies in the books, which were absent in this case.

21.5. We find that the assessee’s submissions, including payment proofs, TDS records, and confirmations, sufficiently established the genuineness of the transactions with the 7 vendors. We conclude that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO’s addition, as the evidence provided by the assessee met the threshold for substantiating these expenses. We, thereby, delete the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) for these 7 vendors and fully allows the assessee’s grounds on this issue, dismissing the Revenue’s contentions. Disallowance of Purchases / Expenses considering non-genuine amounting to Rs.2,25,05,524/- for the A.Y. 2013-14 (Revenue’s Ground No. 2 in ITA No. 796/Ahd/2018)

49 4. AMG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Rs.1,64,37,097/- 22.1. The AO stated that the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to prove that these transactions were genuine. The AO questioned the credibility of the transactions due to the absence of corroborative details proving that these vendors genuinely carried out work for the assessee. The AO took the view that the transactions lacked credibility and considered them doubtful due to insufficient evidence. The AO issued notices under Section 133(6) of the Act to verify these transactions but claimed that they either received no response or the responses were inadequate. In the case of AMG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for instance, notices were returned unserved, and thus the AO doubted the existence of the entity itself. The AO pointed out that in some cases, such as AMG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the assessee failed to provide a verified address or reliable contact details. This added to the AO’s suspicion, as the existence of these entities could not be independently verified through address confirmation. Although the payments were made through ‘account payee cheques’, the AO did not consider this alone as sufficient evidence of the genuineness of transactions. The AO argued that even with such payments, there was no proof that these amounts were not returned in cash to the assessee, implying that the cheques could be a façade for non-genuine transactions. The AO noted that while the assessee submitted TDS certificates, Form 16, and other related documents, these alone were not conclusive proof of genuine transactions. The AO maintained that TDS deductions and their claims for refunds did not independently substantiate the genuineness of the underlying work or transactions claimed to have been done by these vendors. The AO disallowed and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 the expenditure claimed by the assessee under Section 37(1) of the Act, on the basis that the assessee failed to prove that these were incurred for business purposes and were wholly and exclusively for the business.

23.1. The CIT(A) highlighted that the above evidence was enough to discharge the initial burden of proving the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) referenced various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Gujarat High Court, which held that payments made through ‘account payee cheques’ and supported by documentation should not be doubted solely due to suspicion. Cases cited by the CIT(A), such as, CIT v. M.K. Brothers [1987] 163 ITR 249 (Guj. HC) and CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj. HC) emphasized that without concrete evidence of cash and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 withdrawals or circular transactions, the genuineness of payments made by cheque cannot be disputed. The CIT(A) pointed out that there is no statutory requirement for the assessee to provide confirmations from third-party vendors as per Section 37(1) of the Act. The assessee’s responsibility is limited to substantiating expenses incurred with adequate documentation, which the CIT(A) believed had been satisfied. The CIT(A) criticized the AO for failing to make independent enquiries or verification. For instance, even though the AO could have contacted the bank or requested additional information from other sources, there was no evidence that any proactive steps were taken. The CIT(A) noted that the AO's approach, relying solely on the return of unserved notices, was insufficient grounds to question the genuineness of large-scale transactions. The CIT(A) took into account the scale of the assessee’s business operations, which involved over Rs.2200 crore in turnover and approximately 2000 contractors across various sites. The CIT(A) acknowledged that managing a large number of vendors might lead to logistical issues, and failing to get responses from some does not automatically imply that the transactions were non-genuine. Given the evidence and supporting case laws, the CIT(A) concluded that the AO’s disallowance was not justified. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s ground of appeal and directed that the disallowance of Rs.2,25,05,524/- be deleted.

24. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A), as well as the submissions made by the DR and the AR who relied on the orders of respective lower authorities. Upon an independent evaluation of the records and rival contentions, we are inclined to concur with the findings of the CIT(A) as the AO’s disallowance is primarily grounded in assumptions, without any definitive evidence proving and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 that the payments were routed back to the assessee. The AO has not brought on record any tangible evidence, such as cash withdrawals or other indicators, to substantiate the claim that payments made to the vendors were fictitious or returned to the assessee in cash. The assessee has submitted extensive documentation, including TDS certificates, ‘account payee cheque’ payments, work orders, PAN and address details, and confirmations from the Registrar of Companies. In light of this, it is clear that the assessee has discharged its initial onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The mere fact that some notices remained unserved does not, in itself, invalidate the authenticity of the transactions, especially given the scale of the assessee’s business, which involved numerous contractors spread across various locations. The CIT(A) rightly referred to judicial precedents that establish that payments made via ‘account payee cheques’ and substantiated by proper documentation cannot be disallowed merely based on suspicion or absence of confirmations from third parties. In the case of CIT v. M.K. Brothers (supra), it was held that such payments, without specific evidence to the contrary, should be accepted as genuine. The AO’s reliance on presumptive grounds, without any independent corroborative evidence, is contrary to these principles. It is also noted that the AO, despite having the opportunity, did not conduct any further inquiry or verification with the banks or other independent agencies. The AO’s reliance solely on unserved notices without further efforts undermines the principle of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to substantiate its case in the face of doubts raised by the AO.

24.1. In light of the above, we find that the AO’s disallowance was based on assumptions and lacks any substantive evidence to prove that the payments and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 to the four vendors were non-genuine. The CIT(A) has rightly observed that the documentation provided by the assessee is adequate to substantiate the genuineness of these transactions. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee.

24.2. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.2,25,05,524/- made by the AO is hereby deleted, and the ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.

Grounds on Provision for Defect Liability (Warranty Expenses) 25. The grounds are summarized in the following table: – Amount (₹) Common Assessment of Ground Issue / Year Appeal No. Disallowance Provision for 2007-08 ITA 3,56,48,498 Revenue Ground 1 Defect 3269/Ahd/2011 Liability 2008-09 ITA 6,12,08,221 Revenue Ground 2 (Warranty 2353/Ahd/2014 Expenses) 2009-10 ITA 7,99,10,015 Revenue Ground 4 246/Ahd/2016 The Revenue in all above appeals argued that the Provision for Defect Liability represented a contingent liability that had not crystallized during the year. The Revenue contends that the provision does not meet the criteria of an allowable expense since it is uncertain and could or could not arise, thus treating it as contingent and disallowable. The assessee defended the Provision for Defect Liability as an ascertained liability, arguing that it relates to obligations for warranty expenses associated with infrastructure projects. The assessee posited that these costs are reasonably estimated based on prior experience and contractual obligations, therefore qualifying as a legitimate deduction. The assessee also argued that the provision is necessary for maintaining the quality and durability of infrastructure, an integral part of its and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 business operations, justifying the allowance of this provision as an expense under the Act. The nature of liability (whether it is contingent or ascertained) remains the central issue. The Revenue views it as uncertain, whereas the assessee considers it a reasonable estimate based on predictable expenses. CIT(A) sided with the assessee in all noted years, allowing the defect liability provision as an expense. This decision has been appealed by the Revenue, who argues that CIT(A) misjudged the contingent nature of the liability.

26.2. The AR placed reliance of the order of the CIT(A), who relied on the order of his predecessor on identical facts in A.Y. 2006-07. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO regarding the provision for defect liability expenses, citing consistent treatment in prior years (A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07), where similar additions had been deleted. In A.Y. 2006-07, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee’s contracts included a defect liability clause, requiring the assessee to rectify post-construction defects. The assessee created provisions for these liabilities at 0.75% of turnover, which were utilized as claims arose, and the CIT(A) deemed this method reasonable and based on past experience. The CIT(A) referenced judicial precedents, including Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428, SC), which upheld that if a business liability has arisen, it should be allowed as a deduction even if its quantification is deferred. Accordingly, following the prior year’s decision and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 and observing that the provision was neither excessive nor tax-motivated, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, concluding that the assessee’s method was justified, with liability estimation being fair and in line with accepted commercial practices.

57 based on past experience and the nature of the business, qualify as deductible liabilities under Section 37 of the Act. Moreover, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the aforementioned case confirmed that such provisions, being tied to contractual obligations and industry practices, cannot be classified as merely contingent, given the contractual retention requirements and the historical necessity of rectifying defects post-project completion. The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s contention, underscoring that the absence of tax motivation further justified the assessee’s approach.

29.1. In light of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgements, the scientific basis and established practice adopted by the assessee, and the accepted commercial principles underpinning the defect liability provision, we hold that the Revenue’s appeal lacks substantive grounds. Therefore, the appeals on this ground are dismissed, affirming the position that the provision for defect liability is a legitimate deduction under the Act.

Grounds relating to disallowance of Leave Encashment 30. The grounds of assessee are tabulated below:– Type of Ground Issue / (Rs.) Appeal No. Disallowance Disallowance 2007- ITA 77,12,196 Assessee 2 of Leave 08 2815/Ahd/2011 Encashment 2008- ITA 81,81,115 Assessee 3 09 2036/Ahd/2011

2009- ITA 33,34,815 Assessee 2.1 10 1746/Ahd/2016 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

2011- ITA 18,34,735 Assessee 3.1 12 1748/Ahd/2016 30.1. Under these grounds, the assessee contested the disallowance of the leave encashment provision made by the AO, arguing that it is a legitimate and ascertained liability associated with employee benefits, accrued based on employee service and thus should be allowable as an expense. The assessee claimed amounts of provision made in accordance with the actuarial valuation but could not give the details of payment of expenses against the same. The AO emphasized that Section 43B of the Act mandates deductions for certain expenses only when actual payment is made, regardless of the accounting method. Section 43B(f) of the Act explicitly covers “any sum payable by the employer in lieu of leave at the credit of his employee,” thus requiring actual payment for the allowance of leave encashment provisions. The AO referenced this to argue that no deduction is permissible for leave encashment unless the sum has been paid within the relevant financial year. The AO highlighted that the section includes a non-obstante clause, which overrides other provisions that might otherwise allow deduction based on accrual. The AO argued that, per the statute, deductions for leave encashment must strictly follow an “actual payment” criterion, dismissing any reliance on judicial pronouncements that favour an accrual basis, as they cannot override the specific legislative intent of Section 43B. The AO concluded that by merely provisioning for leave encashment without actual payment, the assessee’s claim for deduction is not allowable under the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the amounts for respective years and added it back to the total income, asserting that this treatment aligns with the statute’s aim of ensuring compliance through actual payment. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

31.1. During the course of hearing before us, the AR conceded that the issue is decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court against the Assessee in case of Exide Industries Ltd. [425 ITR 1 (SC)]. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

32.1. In view of the above, and considering the AR’s acknowledgment of these judicial developments, we uphold the disallowances in respect of the unpaid provision for leave encashment. The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, dismissed, as the legislative requirement of Section 43B(f) of the Act mandates actual payment for allowance, which the assessee has not met.

Grounds relating to Disallowance u/s 14A 33. These grounds highlight the main points of contention on Section 14A of the Act disallowance, focusing on the assessee’s arguments for reasoned allocation of expenses and Revenue’s stance on mandatory application of and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

61 Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’) for calculating disallowances. Following is the tabulated summary of the grounds:-

Type of Ground Issue / (Rs.) Appeal No. Disallowance Disallowance 2008- ITA 2,07,727 Assessee 1 under Section 09 2036/Ahd/2011 14A 2011- ITA 82,86,127 Revenue 4 12 248/Ahd/2016 33.1 The assessee disputed the AO’s computation under Rule 8D of the IT Rules, contending that the formulaic disallowance led to an excessive and arbitrary allocation of expenses to exempt income. The assessee argued that it had submitted reasonable explanations and evidence regarding its expenses, which the AO did not consider. They argued that only specific expenses directly linked to exempt income, if any, should be disallowed, rather than an arbitrary proportion as calculated by Rule 8D of the Rules. In case of A.Y. 2011-12, the CIT(A) provided relief by accepting the assessee’s argument against the blanket application of Rule 8D, while in case of A.Y. 2008-09, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance on procedural grounds.

62 assessee has not provided the necessary nexus between the interest-free funds and exempt income. The AO noted that expenses such as bank charges and guarantee fees could be attributed to the investments made for earning exempt income, thereby justifying a Section 14A of the Act disallowance. The AO detailed the application of Rule 8D of the Rules to compute the disallowance and followed the same. The assessment year wise disallowance is tabulated as follows:-

Components A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2011-12 Direct Expenses Nil Nil Attributable to Exempt Income Indirect Interest Expenses Rs. 1,82,152 Rs. 62,73,105 (Rule 8D(2)(ii)) 0.5% of Average Rs. 25,575 Rs. 20,13,022 Investment Value (Rule 8D(2)(iii)) Total Disallowance under Rs. 2,07,727 Rs. 82,86,127 Section 14A

63 reduced available liquid funds, creating a potential need for borrowing which indirectly supported the AO’s view that borrowed funds may have been partially used for investments leading to exempt income. The CIT(A) also found that maintenance and management of these investments involve administrative expenses and therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is justified based on the need for such indirect expenses. The CIT(A) supports the AO’s application of Rule 8D by referencing the decisions of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.87/Del/2008) and Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 8057/Mum/03), which confirmed that a Section 14A of the Act disallowance is warranted even if no direct income is earned from the investments.

Particulars Amount (Rs. in Lakhs) Share Holders' Funds A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2011-12 Share Capital 4339.03 2611.83 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

Reserves and Surplus 12989.51 34850.41 Total 17328.54 37462.24 Investments 51.15 8690.14 38.1. The AR, considering the availability of sufficient own funds, argued that there should not be any disallowance on account of interest. The DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of AO and stated that the AO has reasoned the disallowance on of interest stating that the assessee’s investments likely reduced available liquid funds, creating a potential need for borrowing.

38.2. The AR placed reliance on various judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT – 2, Vadodara Vs. Shreno Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 129, where it was held that the application of section 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is not automatic when the assessee used mixed funds for investment in securities earning tax free income.

39.1. In both the A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2011-12, the assessee’s financials clearly indicate that own funds far exceeded the investments. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shreno Ltd. has emphasized that when sufficient own funds are available, no disallowance under Section 14A should be made on account of interest expenses. Applying this principle, we and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 find that in both years, the assessee’s substantial own funds negate the need for disallowance on account of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act.

39.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts have established that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act requires a proximate cause between the expenditure and exempt income. In A.Y. 2011- 12, the CIT(A) correctly found that the investments in subsidiaries were made to fulfil business obligations with NHAI, without an intent to earn exempt income. Applying the same principle to A.Y. 2008-09, we find no proximate cause connecting any interest expense or administrative cost to the exempt income. Both the purpose and the availability of own funds indicate that the AO’s blanket application of Rule 8D was unjustified in A.Y. 2008-09 as well. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Shreno Ltd. and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT (402 ITR 640) have emphasized that Rule 8D should not be applied automatically and without examining the actual nature and purpose of investments. Since the assessee demonstrated substantial own funds and justified the business necessity behind the investments, we hold that the CIT(A)’s reliance on blanket application of Rule 8D in A.Y. 2008-09 was misplaced. 39.3. In light of the above findings, we conclude as follows:- • A.Y. 2008-09 (ITA No. 2036/Ahd/2011): The appeal of the assessee is allowed. We delete the disallowance of Rs.2,07,727/- under Section 14A of the IT Act, as the application of Rule 8D of the IT Rules was not justified given the availability of substantial own funds and the absence of proximate cause linking expenses to exempt income. • A.Y. 2011-12 (ITA No. 248/Ahd/2016): The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. We uphold the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs.82,86,127/-, finding that the investments were driven by business and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 purposes, funded by own surplus, with no proximate connection to earning exempt income.

Ground on disallowance Gift/Boni/Chandla Expenses - Assessee’s appeal ITA 2815/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08

67 42. Upon reviewing the case, CIT(A) adopted a balanced approach, CIT(A) noted that in A.Y. 2005-06, the CIT(A) fully allowed the expenses claimed by the assessee under the heads of gift, boni, and chandla. After reviewing the nature of these expenses, CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention that such expenditures were essential for business purposes, possibly related to employee rewards or client relations. For A.Y. 2006-07, the CIT(A) adopted a more cautious approach. While considering the precedent from A.Y. 2005-06, CIT(A) noted the AO’s concerns about the lack of full documentary evidence to substantiate the claimed expenses and disallowed Rs.1,50,000/- out of total expenses under this head of Rs.7,05,818/-.

42.1. Considering the facts that total expenses in A.Y. 2007-08 increased to Rs.16,32,610/- the CIT(A) allowed Rs.300,000/-.

44.1. Accordingly, we uphold the CIT(A)’s decision, confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,00,000/-, and dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.

Ground Related to Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) for Import of Materials of Rs.1,26,97,906/- for A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA 1747/Ahd/2016

Grounds relating to Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 48. Under these grounds the assessee disputed various penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, specifically relating to claims for leave encashment, disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, and disallowance due to TDS default. The AO levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars on various disallowances details of which along with grounds of appeal are tabulated below:–

Details Nature of Disallowance Amount of Disallowance (Rs.) A.Y. 2007-08, Disallowance of 3,00,000 Expenses 2603/Ahd/2013, Penalty Amount Leave Encashment 72,66,336 Levied: Rs. 25,59,312, Non-deduction and Short 37,088 Ground No. 1 Deduction of TDS A.Y. 2008-09, Disallowance under Section 14A 2,07,727 Leave Encashment 81,81,115 Penalty Amount Levied: Rs. 28,51,368, Ground No. 1

49. In the appellate proceedings for A.Y. 2007-08, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. The CIT(A) scrutinised the assessee's accounting practices, particularly the creation of provisions for leave encashment. He observed that the assessee only provided for leave encashment in the year under consideration based on an actuarial valuation, which appears to be done for the first time. CIT(A) found discrepancies in the assessee's and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 accounting for leave encashment and a lack of proper disclosure in the balance sheet. The CIT(A) interpreted this as an attempt to manipulate the accounts to claim deductions and deems it as a failure on the assessee's part to fully disclose information to the AO. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in Exide Industries Ltd. v. CIT (292 ITR 470) for non-levy of penalty. However, the CIT(A) highlighted that the facts in Exide Industries are distinguishable from the present case.

50. The CIT(A) found that the assessee has not followed consistent accounting policies for leave encashment and that its practice does not align with the requirements laid down in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428, SC), where the Supreme Court allowed provisions for ascertained liabilities. The CIT(A) relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (306 ITR 277), which established that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is a civil liability, meaning that mens rea (intent to evade tax) need not be proven for its imposition. The CIT(A) applied this interpretation, indicating that since the assessee did not make accurate disclosures, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified.

51. The assessee had relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's judgment in Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., which held that penalty is not leviable when book profits are assessed under section 115JB of the Act. However, CIT(A) dismissed this argument based on the ITAT Chennai Bench's decision in the case of Sri Gokulam Hotels India Pvt Ltd., which upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the Nalwa Sons decision. and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

52. In case of A.Y. 2008-09, while confirming the penalty the CIT(A) reiterated that since the penalty is civil in nature, it does not require mens rea. Penalty is attracted based on the presence of inaccurate particulars or concealment. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had not made full disclosure, especially concerning leave encashment provisions, despite knowing they lacked merit. This omission, along with the inaccurate particulars regarding Section 14A of the Act disallowance, justified the penalty.

52.1. The assessee argued that the disallowance was not warranted, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [230 CTR 320 (SC)], contending that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should apply as no inaccurate particulars were furnished in the return of income. The CIT(A) observed that the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petro Products was distinguishable as it applied to AY 2001-02, when Rule 8D of the IT Rules, was not yet in force. In the present case (AY 2008-09), Rule 8D of the IT Rules was applicable, and the assessee had made substantial investments that generated exempt income, which warranted allocation of expenses under Section 14A of the Act.

52.2. The assessee claimed a deduction for a provision of leave encashment, citing past actuarial valuation and judgments including Exide Industries Ltd. by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court [292 ITR 470]. The CIT(A) noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had admitted a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Exide decision, indicating that its applicability was in question. Additionally, the CIT(A) highlighted that the facts of Exide differed and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 significantly as no proper disclosure was made in the books for leave encashment provisions by the assessee.

74 judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. [2010] 194 taxmann.com 387. The AR also placed on record the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court which dismissed the petition against this judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 184 (SC). The AR also placed reliance on the circular issued by the CBDT having No.25/2015 dated 31-12-2015 which clarified that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed with reference to additions / disallowances made under normal provisions of the Act.

56.1. The assessee had made full disclosure of the leave encashment provision in its financial statements and as a note in the return of income. The records show that the provision was calculated based on actuarial valuation, indicating a genuine attempt to recognize this liability in the accounts rather than any intent to evade taxes. The assessee’s reliance on the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Exide Industries Ltd. [292 ITR 470] to support the deductibility of the leave encashment provision was reasonable and in good faith. Although an SLP was admitted against this decision, it and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 remains a binding precedent until the Hon’ble Supreme Court rules otherwise. Therefore, the assessee’s claim was based on a plausible interpretation of law, which should not attract a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

57.2. The CIT(A) applied the decision in the case of Sri Gokulam Hotels India Pvt. Ltd., which upheld the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the Nalwa Sons ruling. However, this decision does not apply here, as the facts and the legal position under MAT in the present case are distinct. The reliance on Sri Gokulam Hotels by the CIT(A) was, therefore, misplaced and does not override the binding Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Nalwa Sons.

57.3. The AO’s basis for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act rests on the assumption of inaccurate particulars or concealment. However, the records reflect that the assessee consistently disclosed its claims in the financial statements and made provisions in a transparent manner. The CIT(A) has not demonstrated that the assessee’s claims were without merit or intended to mislead. The claims for deductions, though disallowed, do not and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16

77 amount to concealment or inaccuracy under the standards set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.