ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.DHANASEKARAN, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

These two appeals by Revenue are directed against the different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII & V, Chennai for the above assessment years.

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 2 -: and 360/Mds/2015

of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. Since the issue in these appeals

are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed, heard together, and

disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

assessment year 2009-10 is considered for adjudication.

assessment year 2009-10 was filed on a total income of �28,83,467/-.

The case was selected through CASS for scrutiny. Notices u/s.143(2)

and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer

completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 27.12.2011 after making the

disallowance of section 80-IA which was claimed as exemption of

�18,45,450/- to the returned income. Aggrieved, the assessee

preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals).

assessee is not a works contractor and a developer as stipulated

u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. The section 80-IA(4) applies to any enterprise,

which carries on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and

maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 3 -: and 360/Mds/2015

infrastructure facilities, which fulfill all the above conditions. From the

assessment year 2000-01, deduction is available if the assessee is

carrying out the business of anyone of the above mentioned three

types of activities. When an assessee is only developing an

infrastructure facility project and is not maintaining nor operating it,

such an assessee will be paid for the cost incurred by it. If the

infrastructural facility, after its development is transferred to the

Government, the cost would be paid by the Government. Merely

because the transferee had paid for the development of infrastructure

facility carried out by the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee

did not develop the infrastructure facility. If the interpretation done by

the Assessing Officer is accepted, no enterprise carrying on the

business of only developing the infrastructure facility would be entitled

to deduction u/s. 80 IA(4), which is not the intention of the Law. An

enterprise who develop the infrastructure facility is not paid by the

Government, the entire cost of development would be a loss in the

hands of the developer as he is not operating the infrastructure

facility. The legislature has provided that the income of the developer

of the infrastructure project would be eligible for deduction, it

presupposes that there can be become to developer i.e. to a person

who is carrying on the activity of only development infrastructure

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 4 -: and 360/Mds/2015

facility. A developer would have income only if he is paid for the

development of infrastructure facility, that he is having the riqht

/authorization to operate the infrastructure facility and to collect toll

there from, has no other sources of recoupment of his cost of

development. After taking a contract from the Government, if the

assessee develops infrastructure facilities, the assessee would be

regarded as 'developer' and not as a 'works contractor'. The assessee

firm has carried on entire construction/development of the

infrastructure facilities and satisfy all the conditions of sections 80

IA(4)(i)(a) of the act. It is fact that the assessee has taken

development of infrastructure facility agreement from the State

Government/Local Authority. A contractor who develops the

infrastructure facility becomes a developer to claim exemption u/s

80IA(4). The Bombay Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the case of

Patel Engineering Limited Vs. DCIT 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai) held that a

civil contractor, having executed a part of contracts of irrigation and

water supply on "build and transfer’’ basis and handed over them over

to contractee Governments was eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4).

Similarly, Tribunal Chennai Bench has taken a similar view in ITA

No.554/Mds/ 2010 in the case of East Cost Constructions & Industries

Limited vs. DCIT vide order dated 13.09.2011. The deduction u/s 80 lA

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 5 -: and 360/Mds/2015

(4) is available to an enterprise which develops or operates and

maintains, or develops maintains and operates that infrastructure

facility after 01.04.1995. A 'developer' is a specific kind of works

contractor to be eligible for deduction u/s.80IA (4) who fulfills all the

conditions viz., if the assessee develops the infrastructure facility if it

operates the infrastructure facility and if it maintains the infrastructure

facility, the deduction is available to an enterprise who develops or

operates and also maintains, or develops, maintains and operates that

infrastructure facility. The handing over of the infrastructure

facility/project by the developer to the Government or Authority takes

place after recoupment of the developer's cost whether it be 'BT' or

'BOT' or 'BOOT', because in 'BOT' and 'BOOT' this recoupment is by

way of collection of toll therefrom whereas in 'BT' it is by way of

periodical payment by the Government/Authority. The land involved in

infrastructure facility/ project always belongs to the Government/Local

Authority etc., whether it be the case of 'BOT' or 'BOOT' and it IS

handed over by the Government/Authority to the developer for

development of infrastructure facility/project. The same has been the

position in the instant case as well. So deduction u/s 80 IA(4) is

available to the assessee who has undertaken work of a mere

developer.

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 6 -: and 360/Mds/2015

4.1 In this regard, the decision of ACIT Vs. Bharat Udyag Limited

118 ITD 336 and Patel Engineering Ltd., Vs.DCIT 84 TTJ 646 are

relevant. As per CBDT Circular No.4/2010(F.No.178/14/210 ITA-I)

dated 18.05.2010, widening of existing roads constitutes creation of

new infrastructure facility for the purpose of section 80 IA(4)(i). The

assessee is not required to develop the entire road in order to qualify

for deduction u/s 8OlA as has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High

Court in the case of CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries Limited 332 ITR

Act 2007, not apply to a work contract entered into by the overnment

and the Enterprise. It applies to a work contract entered into between

the enterprise and other party 'the Sub Contractor'. The amendment

aims at denying deduction to the sub contractor who executes a work

contract with the enterprise as held by the ITAT Jaipur 'A' Bench in the

case of OM Metal Infraprojects Ltd. Vs. CIT-I, Jaipur ITA No.722 &

723/JP/2008 dated 31.12.2008. The reliance by the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) on the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench in the

case of ACIT vs. Indwell Lianings Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR (AT) 118, has been

enlarged its findings by the ITAT Mumbai ‘F’ Bench in its decision

rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Bharath Udyag Ltd. by holding that

such a deduction is only to be denied to a sub contractor and not to a

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 7 -: and 360/Mds/2015

main contractor. Similar view has been taken by the Chennai Bench of

the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Smt.C.Rajini in which the

difference between works contractor and a developer has been

examined in detail. The main thrust of the decision is that a developer

need not be the owner of the land on which development is made. The

incentive provisions allowed to the assessee, the construction should

be liberally given as held by the Supreme Court rendered in the case

of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. CIT 196 ITR 198. Thus, when the assessee

makes investment and himself executes development work and carries

out civil work, he is eligible for tax benefit u/s. 80-IA of the Act.

Therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80 IA(4) of the

Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed the

Assessing Officer to delete the addition made at �18,45,450/-

disallowed u/s 80 IA(4). The ld. Authorised Representative for

assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer while computing income

of the assessee has wrongly disallowed the deduction u/s 80lA. The

AO has proceeded to the compute the income from the total income

admitted by the assessee before claiming the deduction u/s 80lA and

again disallowed the deduction u/s 80lA and thus the addition has

been made twice in the order resulting in excess disallowance to the

extent of �18,45,450/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 8 -: and 360/Mds/2015

directed the Assessing Officer to verify the computation of income of

the assessee and if the contention of ld. Authorised Representative for

assessee found to be correct, the Assessing Officer may re-compute

the taxable income and delete the excess addition made in the

computation of income. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) allowed the claim of the assessee. Against this, the

Revenue is in appeal before us.

the assessee is a contractor and not developer and the assessee does

not develop any infrastructure facility by investing own funds. Rather

it executed the work contracts awarded by the clients involved in

construction of infrastructure related projects. Merely by executing the

contracts relating to infrastructure projects assessee cannot be treated

as ‘’developer’’ of infrastructure.

6.1 Further according to the ld. Departmental Representative the

provisions of 80IA(4) applies to any enterprise which is ‘’owned by a

company registered in India or by a consortium or a corporation or any

other body established or constituted under any Central or State Act’’.

In this case, the assessee is an individual having proprietary concern

engaged in the business of civil contract work in the relevant financial

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 9 -: and 360/Mds/2015

year and hence it is also hit by the above condition laid down in

Sec.80IA (4)(i)(a) of the Act.

assessee submitted that the main issue involved in the appeals before

this Tribunal is allowability of deduction under section 80IA(4)(i) of the

Act. This issue is common for all the assessment years under appeal.

He dealt with the introduction and changes made by the legislature to

Section 80IA(4) of the Act till date. The said section is meant for

allowing deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial

undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development.

The assessee claimed deduction as it is engaged in development of

infrastructure and as it satisfied all the conditions mentioned therein.

The provisions of Section 80IA(4)(i) as introduced by the by the

Finance Act, 1999 and as amended from time to time are applicable to

the assessee.

7.1 He submitted that from a reading of the section, it is clear that

the deduction is allowable to:

(a) any company incorporated;

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 10 -: and 360/Mds/2015

(b) which entered into agreement with Government; or any government body; and undertakes development of infrastructure facility.

The purpose for which the said section was amended with effect from

the assessment year 2000-01, can be traced to a brochure issued by

the Government of India, Ministry of Roads, Transport and High Ways

in August, 2001. He has taken support from the aforesaid brochure. In

the said brochure, the Government of India extracted some of the

decisions taken by it to bring in the development of infrastructure

facility in the country. He pointed out that the Government provided

the benefits to the Indian entrepreneurs by providing contract

packages to the private enterprises. While providing benefits, the

government specifically specified certain grants only to BOT Schemes.

For the other schemes all the other benefits are made available. The

classification provided in the brochure clearly indicates that the

schemes of packages are meant for all the enterprises whether

engaged in the development of infrastructure or under BOT. Hence, it

clearly indicates that the Government of India with a view to develop

the infrastructure facility provided various incentives to the Indian

concerns for development of such infrastructure facility. With a view to

provide the exemptions to the entrepreneurs carrying on such activity,

the legislature introduced the amendment to Section 80IA(4) in the

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 11 -: and 360/Mds/2015

Finance Bill 1999 to be effective for and from the assessment years

2000-01 and onwards to fulfil the objective of the Prime Minister. The

provisions of Sec. 80IA(4) are made applicable to "any enterprise

carrying on the business of (i) developing, (ii) maintaining and

operating or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating or

development, maintenance and operating any infrastructure

facility………". Because of the amendment, the enterprises which are

engaged in any of the three activities became eligible for deduction

compared to the earlier provision, which was made applicable only to

such enterprises engaged in all the three activities cumulatively. The

provisions of sub section (4A) which were earlier applicable to the

entrepreneurs engaged in developing, maintaining and operating was

deleted with effect from 01-04-2000, but is incorporated in section

80IA(4) of the Act. It is clear that the enterprises which were

developing, operating and maintaining and developing, operating and

maintaining were only eligible for such deduction up to the assessment

year 1999-2000 by virtue of the provisions of Section 80IA(4A). With

the introduction of the new Section 80IA(4) amending the sub section

(4) of Section 80IA and deleting the sub section (4A), the legislature

provided deduction for any enterprise carrying on the business either

developing or operating and maintaining or development, operating

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 12 -: and 360/Mds/2015

and maintaining instead allowing deduction only to the enterprises

engaged in activity covering all the three activities together.

7.2 According to ld. Authorised Representative for assessee the

provision extended to an enterprise carrying on any one of the three

activities. It makes the matters more clear that the sub section (4) is

amended again by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01-04-

2002.The legislature specifically added the conjunction 'OR' between

the words (developing), (operating and maintaining) (developing,

operating and maintaining). It makes it clear that the provision would

apply to any enterprise carrying on the business of developing or

carrying on the business of operating and maintaining or carrying on

the business of development, operating and maintaining the

infrastructure facility. Therefore, there is no requirement that all the

three activities should have been carried on by a single enterprise so

as to enable it to claim deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act.

This view is also supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court

in the case of CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/

189 taxman 54 . It mentioned clearly that the three conditions

development, operation and maintenance were not intended to be

cumulative in nature. Therefore, any assessee who has undertaken

any one of the activity is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 13 -: and 360/Mds/2015

the Act. The Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of Asstt. CIT v.

Bharat Udyog Ltd. [2009] 118 ITD 336/[2008] 24 SOT 412(Mum.) also

held that after the amendment of Section 80IA(4) it is applicable to

enterprises who are engaged in developing infrastructural facility.

Earlier, the Mumbai Bench in the case of Patel Engg. Ltd., v. Dy. CIT

[2005] 94 ITD 411 also observed that the civil contractors who are

developing the infrastructure facility is eligible for deduction under

section 80IA(4) of the Act. It is mentioned that the statutory provisions

as contained in 80IA(4) provides for development of infrastructure

facility. Therefore, it is clear that to be eligible for deduction under

section 80IA(4), an enterprise need not necessarily be engaged in all

the three activities of developing, maintaining and operating the

infrastructure. It is enough if it is carrying on the business of either

developing or maintaining and operating or developing, maintaining

and operating the infrastructure facility.

7.3. It was submitted by counsel for assessee that, as per the

agreement, the possession of the site is handed over to the assessee

by the Government. The assessee takes possession and access to the

property and thereafter it shall be the responsibility of the assessee to

develop the said area into more useful infrastructure facility. In the

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 14 -: and 360/Mds/2015

process, every act required (whether mentioned in the agreement or

not) in converting the area into more useful one shall be that of the

assessee. The assessee has to undertake the responsibility of

maintenance of the existing traffic and there should not be

inconvenience to the regular traffic. The developed area after

completion of the development of infrastructure is handed over to the

Government. After handing over, the assessee shall maintain the

infrastructure for a period of 48 months and any defects are to be

rectified and it is clear that the assessee is converting the area

entrusted to it into more useful and more profitable area and handing

over the developed one to the Government. Therefore, the activity of

the assessee is "to develop" an existing two lane road into four lane

road thereby making the road more useful and profitable. The ld.

Authorised Representative for assessee further submitted that as per

the explanation introduced by the Finance Act, 2007, any assessee

who entered into a contract with the enterprise mentioned in Sub-

Section (4) would not be eligible for deduction. It clearly indicates that

any sub-contractor who undertakes a part of the work from the

undertaking which was allotted the work would not be eligible for such

deduction. The said explanation has no application to the assessee.

The assessee did not claim such deduction or any income pertaining to

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 15 -: and 360/Mds/2015

a sub contract work undertaken from the enterprises referred to in

Section 80IA(4). Therefore, the explanation introduced by the Finance

Act, 2007 shall not affect the claim made by the assessee. The

explanation introduced by the Finance Act, 2009 added that those

enterprises undertaking simple works contracts by entering into

agreements with the enterprises or with the government or

government organizations. As per this explanation, any enterprises

which enter into a mere works contract either with any other

enterprise or Government or Government corporation shall not be

eligible for the deduction. It is made clear that any enterprise, which

entered into development of infrastructure, would be eligible for

deduction and not those enterprises, which enter into contract for

executing works contracts. The assessee herein entered into

agreement for development of infrastructure facility and not for a mere

works contract. It is submitted that this explanation has to be read in

the context of the application of the main provisions of Section 80IA(4)

of the Act. From a reading of Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act, it is clear

that the deduction is available for any company which enters into

agreement with any government or government body. It is clear that

the deduction is available not for any person but for those companies

entering into agreement with the government or other Government

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 16 -: and 360/Mds/2015

bodies/corporations. It is also made clear that the deduction is

available for the corporate bodies entering into agreement with the

government organizations. Therefore, the main provision makes it

clear that the deduction is available to companies entering into

agreement with government bodies or Government. Therefore, it is not

correct to read the explanation to mean that the government body is

eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act and the company

entering into agreement with such government body is not eligible for

deduction.

7.4 In so far as the meaning of the word "works contract" is

concerned, the ld. AR placed reliance on the judgement of Bombay

High Court in the case of CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [2010]

324 ITR 199/ 191 Taxman 455(Bom.) wherein held that in a works

contract, the contractee would provide the material and all other

requirements in the process of manufacture/production. The contractor

merely carries on the work with the material supplied by the

contractee and the knowledge supplied by the contractee. Further, in a

works contract, the risk is undertaken by the contractee and in case of

development contract, the contractor undertakes the risks involved. In

the case of the assessee, it was allotted a premises and the possession

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 17 -: and 360/Mds/2015

of the premises was handed over to the assessee. It was asked by the

government to develop the said area into an infrastructure facility. All

the activities necessary in the process of development and the losses

suffered in the process, the material to be used including the expertise

shall be of the assessee. The maintenance of the existing facility

during the period of development also shall be of the assessee.

Therefore, the assessee is a developer and not a works contractor. He

relied on the Circular No. 4 of 2010 dated 18-05-2010, which is after

introduction of the explanation by the Finance Act, 2009, for the

proposition that widening of existing road is an infrastructure facility

and any enterprise carrying on the activity of widening of an existing

road would be eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act.

7.5 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee submitted that

as per Circular No.4/2010, dated 18.5.2010 wherein the Central Board

of Direct Taxes has clarified that widening of existing roads constitutes

creation of new infrastructure facility for the purposes of section

80IA(4)(i) of the Act.

7.6 The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee also relied on the

following decisions.

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 18 -: and 360/Mds/2015

(i) CTI vs. Radhe Developers, 341 ITR 403 (Guj)

(ii) Patel Engineering Ltd. vs. DCIT, 84 TTJ 646 (Mum)

(iii) ACIT vs. Bharat Udyog Ltd, 123 TTJ 689 (Mum)

(iv) CIT vs ABG Heavy Industries Ltd, 322 ITR 323(Bom)

(v) The order of the Tribunal in the case of Ramky Infrastructure Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.472/Hyd/09 dated 17.07.2013

both the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

We have also gone through all the case laws cited by both the parties.

We find that the provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act when

introduced afresh by the Finance Act, 1999, the provisions under

section 80IA(4A) of the Act were deleted from the Act. The deduction

available for any enterprise earlier under section 80IA(4A) are also

made available under Section 80IA(4) itself. Further, the very fact that

the legislature mentioned the words (i) "developing" or (ii) "operating

and maintaining" or (iii) "developing, operating and maintaining"

clearly indicates that any enterprise which carried on any of these

three activities would become eligible for deduction. Therefore, there is

no ambiguity in the Income-Tax Act. We find that where an assessee

incurs expenditure on its own for purchase of materials and towards

labour charges and itself executes the development work i.e., carries

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 19 -: and 360/Mds/2015

out the civil construction work, it will be eligible for tax benefit under

section 80 IA of the Act. In contrast to this, a assessee, who enters

into a contract with another person including Government or an

undertaking or enterprise referred to in Section 80 IA of the Act, for

executing works contract, will not be eligible for the tax benefit under

section 80 IA of the Act. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to

reproduce hereunder section 80IA of the “Act” providing deduction in

respect of profits and gains from industrial undertaking or enterprises

engaged in infrastructure development which reads as follows:-

80IA. (1)Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being hereinafter referred to as the eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to hundred per cent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. (2) ………………….. (2A) ………………… (3) ………………….. (4) This section applies to— (i) any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfils all the following conditions, namely:— (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies or by an authority or a board or a corporation or any other body established or constituted under any Central or State Act; (b) it has entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 20 -: and 360/Mds/2015

or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility; (c) it has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st day of April, 1995: Provided that where an infrastructure facility is transferred on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 by an enterprise which developed such infrastructure facility (hereafter referred to in this section as the transferor enterprise) to another enterprise (hereafter in this section referred to as the transferee enterprise) for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Central Government, State Government, local authority or statutory body, the provisions of this section shall apply to the transferee enterprise as if it were the enterprise to which this clause applies and the deduction from profits and gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “infrastructure facility” means— (a) a road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system; (b) a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project; (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system; (d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea; (5) ……………… (13) ……………. *Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government) and executed by the undertaking or enterprise referred to in sub-section (1). *It introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w..e.f. 1.4.2000

A perusal of the statutory provisions makes it clear that it does

not provide a blanket deduction i.e. in order to succeed in a claim of

deduction; the concerned assessee has to derive profits and gains

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 21 -: and 360/Mds/2015

from any business referred to in sub-section 4. Further, sub-section 4

prescribes applicability of clause i.e. the case in which the deduction

provision would apply. It is in this sub-section that the legislature has

enumerated the nature of the undertakings, their activities in

contributing raising of infrastructure. Further, in the explanation

attached to the sub-section, the legislature has also entrusted the

meaning of the infrastructure facilities. In our opinion, an assessee

while claiming deduction has to satisfy all conditions in sub-section

4(1)(a) or (b) or (c). It is mandatory for the assessee to first satisfy

sub-section clause i(a), then (b) then (c), then proviso and so on. In

case the concerned assessee fails in any one of the clauses, even if it

satisfies the other part of the sub-section, the claim has to be rejected.

Now we proceed to decide as to whether the assessee proprietorship

concern satisfies sub-section 4(i) of the “Act” or not. For the said sub-

section, a reading of the provision makes it unambiguous that the

concerned claimant has to be an enterprises carrying on the business

of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating

and maintaining any infrastructure facility and it has to be owned by a

consortium of such company or by an authority or a board or a

corporation or any other body established or constituted under any

Central or State Act. Admittedly, the assessee is a proprietorship. As

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 22 -: and 360/Mds/2015

we notice from the relevant statutory provision, the enterprise in the

nature of proprietorship nowhere finds mention in the mandate of the

legislature. Although it was emphasized from the definition of the word

‘body’ in the Law Lexicon which reads as follows:

“Statutory definition, includes partnership, Financial Services and Markets Act, 2000 (c.8), S. 367(2) (Stroud, 6th Edn., 2000, Supplement, 2003). It also includes group of bodies, partnership of enterprise card on by one or more persons or bodies and a body which is substantially the same at or successor, to, another body, Government Resources and Accounts Act, 2000 (c.20), S. 17(7) (Stroud, 6th Edn., 2000, Supplement, 2003). The main-central or principal part [Art. 110 (2), Const.]; physical or material frame of a man or animal; gang of thieves etc.”

8.1 In our opinion, the said definition being a general preposition

does not help the assessee’s case. It is a trite preposition of law while

interpreting a statute and more so a fiscal statue, neither the judicial

forum concerned can insert its own words nor it can take away any

from the statute. As it is seen, the earlier portion of the statutory

provision prescribes a company registered in India or a consortium of

such companies or by an authority or corporation or any other body

established or constituted and so on. In our view, the latter part is

liable to be read in the light of the earlier part by following the

principles of ejusdem generis.

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 23 -: and 360/Mds/2015

8.2 Further, it was noticed that in the case of M/s. Ramky

Infrastructure Ltd vs. DCIT, in ITA No.472/Hyd/2009 & others the

Hyderabad bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 17.07.2013

observed in his order in para 14 following the earlier order of the

Tribunal in the case of NCC-ECCI(JV) vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 124 &

125/Hyd/2009 vide order dated 17.06.2013 inter alia that word ‘owned’

in sub-clause (a) on clause (1) of sub-section (4) of section 80IA of the

Act referred to the enterprise. In other words, the enterprises carrying

on development of the infrastructure facilities should be owned by a

company or consortium of companies. The infrastructure facilities

need not be owned by a company. It was held that the word

‘ownership’ is attributable only to the enterprise carrying on the

business which would mean that only companies are eligible for

deduction under section 80IA(4) and not any other person like new

HUF Firm etc. Hence, we hold that the assessee fails to satisfy the

applicability clause of the provision as envisaged under section

80IA(4)(i) of the “Act”.

assessee, we notice that they only pertain to section 80IA(4)(i)(b) i.e.

regarding the issue of contractor viz-a-vis developer. Hence, we do not

deem it appropriate to decide on the said issue since the assessee

does not fulfill the condition enumerated in the first part of the

I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 24 -: and 360/Mds/2015

statutory provision.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 6th day of November, 2015 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (धु�वु�आर.एलरे�डी) (चं� पूजार� ) (DUVVURU R.L. REDDY) (CHANDRA POOJARI) �या�यक सद�य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai. �दनांक/Dated:06.11.2015. KV आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2.��यथ�/ Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.