CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.

322 ITR 323High Court2010#388 most cited

What is CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot deny a Section 80IA deduction by merely asserting that the assessee is not a "developer" without considering the relevant agreements and facts. Entitlement to Section 80IA deduction requires a thorough examination of the assessee's role as a developer.

229

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. · 322 ITR 323 · Section 80IA · deduction u/s 80IA · developer status · infrastructure facility · eligible business · Assessing Officer observation · binding precedent · claim denial

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 54

Sections most often in play

Section 80IASection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(a)(i)Section 80P(4)Section 80IA(4)Section 143(1)Section 37Section 80P(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80ia(13)section 56(i)(ccv)section 80ia(4)(i)section 80ia(4)infrastructure facilitydeduction u/s 80iadeduction under section 80iasection 80iatax benefitsection 80p(1)section 80ieligible business

Judgments citing CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 312/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

…his context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring to decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 has laid down certain parameters for contractors to be eligible for deduction. The said parameters for a contractor to be eligible for deduction are as follows:-- (a) Undertaking financial risk by making investment. (b) Shouldering technical risk. (c) Liable for liquidated damages. (d) Employment of technical and administrative qual…

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 311/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

…his context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring to decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 has laid down certain parameters for contractors to be eligible for deduction. The said parameters for a contractor to be eligible for deduction are as follows:-- (a) Undertaking financial risk by making investment. (b) Shouldering technical risk. (c) Liable for liquidated damages. (d) Employment of technical and administrative qual…

Shreenathji Infrastructure P.Ltd., Pipariya vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Itarsi

ITA 310/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 80Section 80I

…his context, the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 97/59 SOT 61 (URO) after referring to decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 has laid down certain parameters for contractors to be eligible for deduction. The said parameters for a contractor to be eligible for deduction are as follows:-- (a) Undertaking financial risk by making investment. (b) Shouldering technical risk. (c) Liable for liquidated damages. (d) Employment of technical and administrative qual…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

ITA 6488/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Special bench decision in the case of B. T. Patil (Mum.) 126 TTJ 577 was recalled later on as it did not consider the binding decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ABG 322 ITR 323 (Bom). According to the assessment order, copies of all the agreements were before Assessing Officer yet assessing officer chose to make sweeping observation that the assessee is not developer. Such sweeping and bald assertion cannot be approved by us. Therefore, taking into the facts of the present case, we are the considered view that appellant…

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 52

ITA 6044/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Somil AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt Abha Rani Singh
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Special bench decision in the case of B. T. Patil (Mum.) 126 TTJ 577 was recalled later on as it did not consider the binding decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ABG 322 ITR 323 (Bom). According to the assessment order, copies of all the agreements were before Assessing Officer yet assessing officer chose to make sweeping observation that the assessee is not developer. Such sweeping and bald assertion cannot be approved by us. Therefore, taking into the facts of the present case, we are the considered view that appellant…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1481/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address in A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan…

Vijay M.Mistry Construction Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2938/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address in A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan…

The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (4), Rajkot vs. Patel Highway Management Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 383/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 383/Rjt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 Patel Highway Management Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 2Nd Floor, Patcon House, Vs. Ward-2(1)4, Kalwad Road, Rajkot. Kotecha Chowk, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 80

…he 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. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 taxman 54 had held that the three conditions development, operation and maintenance were not intended to be cumulative in nature 6.6 Furthermore, for operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility, first of all there should have been existing facility as such and then and then question of operating and maintenance comes into play. The…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…n the investment, financial and technical risks undertaken by the contractor, the Assessee is a developer of the respective projects.” 5. In support of the above submissions, Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions: - (i). ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (para 5 of that order) (ii). Assessee's own case for AY 2000-01 reported in 94 ITD 411 (paras 46 and 47) (iii). ACIT v Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 (iv). B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, 34 taxmann.com 97 (v). ACIT v. Patel KNR Joint Venture ITA 5230/M/2012 (vi). DCIT v. V.R.M. (India) Ltd. ITA 811/Del/2008 (vii). KCL BE…

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2757/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 199(2)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…n the investment, financial and technical risks undertaken by the contractor, the Assessee is a developer of the respective projects.” 5. In support of the above submissions, Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions: - (i). ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (para 5 of that order) (ii). Assessee's own case for AY 2000-01 reported in 94 ITD 411 (paras 46 and 47) (iii). ACIT v Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 (iv). B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Constructions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, 34 taxmann.com 97 (v). ACIT v. Patel KNR Joint Venture ITA 5230/M/2012 (vi). DCIT v. V.R.M. (India) Ltd. ITA 811/Del/2008 (vii). KCL BE…

Aci T-CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1003/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…5-24 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 10 thereon. Retrospective effect of the amendment has been discussed in page 35 of his order vide para 14. The decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 323 has been relied upon and discussed in para 15 & 16 of his order. b) A.Y.2015-16 - pages 37-45 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 22 thereon. c) A.Y.2016-17 - pages 46-54 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 24 thereon. d) A.Y.2017-18 - pages 55-61 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 26 thereon. 3.8. We find that the issue of eligibil…

Aci T-CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1002/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…5-24 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 10 thereon. Retrospective effect of the amendment has been discussed in page 35 of his order vide para 14. The decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 323 has been relied upon and discussed in para 15 & 16 of his order. b) A.Y.2015-16 - pages 37-45 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 22 thereon. c) A.Y.2016-17 - pages 46-54 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 24 thereon. d) A.Y.2017-18 - pages 55-61 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 26 thereon. 3.8. We find that the issue of eligibil…

Aci -CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1001/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…5-24 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 10 thereon. Retrospective effect of the amendment has been discussed in page 35 of his order vide para 14. The decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 323 has been relied upon and discussed in para 15 & 16 of his order. b) A.Y.2015-16 - pages 37-45 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 22 thereon. c) A.Y.2016-17 - pages 46-54 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 24 thereon. d) A.Y.2017-18 - pages 55-61 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 26 thereon. 3.8. We find that the issue of eligibil…

Aci -CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…5-24 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 10 thereon. Retrospective effect of the amendment has been discussed in page 35 of his order vide para 14. The decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 323 has been relied upon and discussed in para 15 & 16 of his order. b) A.Y.2015-16 - pages 37-45 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 22 thereon. c) A.Y.2016-17 - pages 46-54 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 24 thereon. d) A.Y.2017-18 - pages 55-61 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) and para 26 thereon. 3.8. We find that the issue of eligibil…

M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

ITA 206/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80I

…y the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Special bench decision in the case of B. T. Patil (Mum.) 126 TTJ 577 was recalled later on as it did not consider the binding decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ofABG 322 ITR 323 (Born). According to the assessment order, copies of all the agreements were before Assessing Officer yet assessing officer chose to make sweeping observation that the assessee is not developer. Such sweeping and bald assertion 13 I.T.A.Nos.206 & 1161/Del./2017 M/s. IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi. cannot be approved by us. Therefore, taking…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

ITA 1161/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 80I

…y the revenue are clearly misplaced on facts and are clearly distinguishable. Special bench decision in the case of B. T. Patil (Mum.) 126 TTJ 577 was recalled later on as it did not consider the binding decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case ofABG 322 ITR 323 (Born). According to the assessment order, copies of all the agreements were before Assessing Officer yet assessing officer chose to make sweeping observation that the assessee is not developer. Such sweeping and bald assertion 13 I.T.A.Nos.206 & 1161/Del./2017 M/s. IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi. cannot be approved by us. Therefore, taking…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - (1), Panaji vs. M/S Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panaji

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…of constructing road for PWD Department of the Government and is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 4.11. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries (2010) 322 ITR 323. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as under: “Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was introduced to provide an impetus to the growth of infrastructure in the nation. A sound infrastructure is a sine qua non for economic development. Absence of infrastructure poses significant barriers to growth and development. A mod…

Goa State Infrastructure Devlopment Corporation Limited., Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji

In the result, both the appeal of assessee and the revenue are dismissed

ITA 449/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Goa State Infrastructure Income Tax Officer, Ward- Development Corporation 1(1), Panaji – Goa 403 001. Ltd. Vs. 7Th Floor, Edc House, Dr. A. B. Road, Panaji, Goa 403001 (Pan: Blrgo3663C) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Goa State Infrastructure Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Vs. Development Corporation Panaji, Goa Ltd., Panaji . (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Department By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Vide Ita No. 143/Cit(A)-2/Pnj/2017-18 & Ita No. 42/Cit(A)-1/Pnj/2017-18 Dated 27.09.2018 For A.Y. 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-1(1), Panaji-Goa Dated 19.12.2016. 2. Shri Jitendra Jain, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. M/S. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. A.Y: 2015-16 3. The Only Issue Involved In These Two Cross Appeals Is In Relation To Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.3,37,35,560/- Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80Ia Of The Act. The Assessee Is In Appeal In Respect Of Disallowance Of An Amount Of Rs.23,97,310/- & The Department Is In Appeal In Respect Of Relief Granted By The Ld. Cit(A) For Allowance Of Rs.3,13,38,250/-, Both Comprising The Total Claim Of Rs.3,37,35,560/-.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…of constructing road for PWD Department of the Government and is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 4.11. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. ABG Heavy Industries (2010) 322 ITR 323. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced as under: “Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was introduced to provide an impetus to the growth of infrastructure in the nation. A sound infrastructure is a sine qua non for economic development. Absence of infrastructure poses significant barriers to growth and development. A mod…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2202/AHD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI (Dr.) ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr.No. ITA No(s). Asstt. Year(s) 1-4 118/Ahd/2009 : 2002-03 441/Ahd/2011 : 2004-05 442/Ahd/2011 : 2007-08 3254/Ahd/2011 : 2008-09 5-9 1385/Ahd/2012 : 2009-10 3126/Ahd/2013 : 2010-11 2917/Ahd/2016 : 2010-11 2334/Ahd/2014 : 2011-12 1499/Ahd/2018 : 2011-12 10-11 1281/Ahd/2016 : 2012-13 2916/Ahd/2016 : 2013-14 12-13 2201/Ahd/2018 : 2015-16 2202/Ahd/2018 : 2016-17 : 14 CO No.195/Ahd/2015 : 2008-09 IN Rajkamal Builders Infrastru…

M/S. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result this ground of appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri (Dr.) Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR and Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI (Dr.) ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr.No. ITA No(s). Asstt. Year(s) 1-4 118/Ahd/2009 : 2002-03 441/Ahd/2011 : 2004-05 442/Ahd/2011 : 2007-08 3254/Ahd/2011 : 2008-09 5-9 1385/Ahd/2012 : 2009-10 3126/Ahd/2013 : 2010-11 2917/Ahd/2016 : 2010-11 2334/Ahd/2014 : 2011-12 1499/Ahd/2018 : 2011-12 10-11 1281/Ahd/2016 : 2012-13 2916/Ahd/2016 : 2013-14 12-13 2201/Ahd/2018 : 2015-16 2202/Ahd/2018 : 2016-17 : 14 CO No.195/Ahd/2015 : 2008-09 IN Rajkamal Builders Infrastru…