Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Central

94 ITD 411Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#5569 most cited

What is Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Central authority for?

For availing deduction under section 80-IA, the 'infrastructure facility' does not necessarily need to be owned by the assessee. The assessee was held to be a developer, eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT · 94 ITD 411 · section 80-IA · infrastructure facility · developer · contractor · deduction eligibility

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80-IASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 149

Issues it is cited on

section 80lasection 86section 80ib(4)section 80lsection 80ia(4)(i)section 167bsection 167section 80ia(4)infrastructure facilityclarificatory amendmentdeduction u/s 80iasection 245d

Judgments citing Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Central

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

…vs. ACIT (2012) 25 taxmann.com 260 (Bangalore) 20. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Engg. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that for availing deduction u/s 80-IA, ‘infrastructure facility’ should not necessarily be owned by the assessee. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 45 of the order of the Tribunal which reads as under: “45. In t…

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

…vs. ACIT (2012) 25 taxmann.com 260 (Bangalore) 20. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Engg. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that for availing deduction u/s 80-IA, ‘infrastructure facility’ should not necessarily be owned by the assessee. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 45 of the order of the Tribunal which reads as under: “45. In t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 80

…vs. ACIT (2012) 25 taxmann.com 260 (Bangalore) 20. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Patel Engg. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that for availing deduction u/s 80-IA, ‘infrastructure facility’ should not necessarily be owned by the assessee. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 45 of the order of the Tribunal which reads as under: “45. In t…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

…the defect liability period, are considered interim payments. While holding so the CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (para 5 of that order), assessee's own case for AY 2000- 01 reported in 94 ITD 411 (paras 46 and 47) and Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 to hold that the assessee is a developer and not a contractor. 7. We had also gone through the tender document filed by the assessee which is placed on record, after analyzing the major clause of the agreement to determine the scope and nature of work undertaken, we found that assessee was a devel…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

…the defect liability period, are considered interim payments. While holding so the CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (para 5 of that order), assessee's own case for AY 2000- 01 reported in 94 ITD 411 (paras 46 and 47) and Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 to hold that the assessee is a developer and not a contractor. 7. We had also gone through the tender document filed by the assessee which is placed on record, after analyzing the major clause of the agreement to determine the scope and nature of work undertaken, we found that assessee was a devel…

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

…ee 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 BEL Tarmat JV v, ITO, ITA 111/Rjt/2010 (viii). GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT 21 Taxmann.com…

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

…ee 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 BEL Tarmat JV v, ITO, ITA 111/Rjt/2010 (viii). GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT 21 Taxmann.com…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 1679/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…we are very well complied the provisions of the section 801A(4) of the act and eligible for tax exemption. We further like to invite your kind attention towards the ITAT Mumbai Bench F judgment in case of Patel Engg. Ltd v/s Dy. CIT Central circle reported in 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai) that - Assessee co was engaged in execution of civil contacts - It had taken two contracts from state govt.- In one of the projects, assessee constructed an underground tunnel and specialized structures to supply water from river to power house and to take water back to river for use of irrigation -Similarly, in other project assessee con…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 1577/AHD/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…we are very well complied the provisions of the section 801A(4) of the act and eligible for tax exemption. We further like to invite your kind attention towards the ITAT Mumbai Bench F judgment in case of Patel Engg. Ltd v/s Dy. CIT Central circle reported in 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai) that - Assessee co was engaged in execution of civil contacts - It had taken two contracts from state govt.- In one of the projects, assessee constructed an underground tunnel and specialized structures to supply water from river to power house and to take water back to river for use of irrigation -Similarly, in other project assessee con…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 770/AHD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…we are very well complied the provisions of the section 801A(4) of the act and eligible for tax exemption. We further like to invite your kind attention towards the ITAT Mumbai Bench F judgment in case of Patel Engg. Ltd v/s Dy. CIT Central circle reported in 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai) that - Assessee co was engaged in execution of civil contacts - It had taken two contracts from state govt.- In one of the projects, assessee constructed an underground tunnel and specialized structures to supply water from river to power house and to take water back to river for use of irrigation -Similarly, in other project assessee con…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Gnr Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 4002/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…we are very well complied the provisions of the section 801A(4) of the act and eligible for tax exemption. We further like to invite your kind attention towards the ITAT Mumbai Bench F judgment in case of Patel Engg. Ltd v/s Dy. CIT Central circle reported in 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai) that - Assessee co was engaged in execution of civil contacts - It had taken two contracts from state govt.- In one of the projects, assessee constructed an underground tunnel and specialized structures to supply water from river to power house and to take water back to river for use of irrigation -Similarly, in other project assessee con…

Akash Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Gandhinagar

ITA 2826/AHD/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…we are very well complied the provisions of the section 801A(4) of the act and eligible for tax exemption. We further like to invite your kind attention towards the ITAT Mumbai Bench F judgment in case of Patel Engg. Ltd v/s Dy. CIT Central circle reported in 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai) that - Assessee co was engaged in execution of civil contacts - It had taken two contracts from state govt.- In one of the projects, assessee constructed an underground tunnel and specialized structures to supply water from river to power house and to take water back to river for use of irrigation -Similarly, in other project assessee con…

ACIT, Company Circle-2(3), Chennai vs. M/S.Indwel Lianings Prt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the addition of Rs

ITA 1632/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. CKN. Ravishankar Prabhu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…facility. As far as the first contention of the AO is concerned, I have held in the case of the Appellant itself in Appeal for the Assessment Year 2002 – 2003, relying on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Patel Engineering Limited reported in 94 ITD 411 (Mum., that the Appellant is entitled to deduction u/s.80IA being engaged in the development of an infrastructure facility as contemplated u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any force in the first contention of the AO. Regarding the second contention of the AO, that the machinery is not installed in the infrastructure facility. I am…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…t’ in the said sub clauses a, b, and c qualifies the word ‘enterprise’ used in the main part of the clause I of subsection 4. In defence of his argument the ld. A.R relied on the decision of coordinate bench in the case Patel Engineering company Ltd. Vs. DCIT 94 ITD 411 wherein it has been clarified that the word ‘it’ in sub clauses a, b and c of clause I of subsection 4 of Sec. 80IA has been used to denote enterprises and not the infrastructure facility. Therefore, the ld. A.O contended that it is clear that infrastructure facility need not be owned by the company and hence the objection raised in this regard is…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5269/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…the defect liability period, are considered interim payments. While holding so the CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (para 5 of that order), assessee's own case for AY 2000-01 reported in 94 ITD 411 (paras 46 and 47) and Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 to hold that the assessee is a developer and not a contractor. 7. We had also gone through the tender document filed by the assessee which is placed on record, after analyzing the major clause of the agreement to determine the scope and nature of work undertaken, we found that assessee was a deve…

Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 4992/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am Patel Engineering Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Sv Road, Patel Estate, Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Jogeshwari (W), No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air Vs. Mumbai-400102 India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacp2567L The Dy. Commissioner Of Patel Engineering Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4),Room Sv Road, Patel Estate, No. 1915, 19Th Floor Air India Vs. Jogeshwari (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400102 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mayur Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 80I

…the defect liability period, are considered interim payments. While holding so the CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 322 ITR 323 (para 5 of that order), assessee's own case for AY 2000-01 reported in 94 ITD 411 (paras 46 and 47) and Bharat Udyog Ltd. 24 SOT 412 to hold that the assessee is a developer and not a contractor. 7. We had also gone through the tender document filed by the assessee which is placed on record, after analyzing the major clause of the agreement to determine the scope and nature of work undertaken, we found that assessee was a deve…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2735/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…d on order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Om Metals Infraprojects Limited vs. CIT in ITA Nos. 722 and 723/JP/2008 wherein the ITAT Jaipur Bench, while relying on another order of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Patel Engineering Company Ltd. vs. ACIT 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai), had held that development of water supply and irrigation project was infrastructure. The ITAT had further held that the word ‘contractor’ is not opposite to the word ‘ developer’ and further that the assessee was not a mere contractor but also a developer and hence eligible to get deduction u/s 80IA. 4. In response, the Ld. CIT (DR) s…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2347/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…d on order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Om Metals Infraprojects Limited vs. CIT in ITA Nos. 722 and 723/JP/2008 wherein the ITAT Jaipur Bench, while relying on another order of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Patel Engineering Company Ltd. vs. ACIT 94 ITD 411 (Mumbai), had held that development of water supply and irrigation project was infrastructure. The ITAT had further held that the word ‘contractor’ is not opposite to the word ‘ developer’ and further that the assessee was not a mere contractor but also a developer and hence eligible to get deduction u/s 80IA. 4. In response, the Ld. CIT (DR) s…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 25, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6605/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Deepkant Prasad
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234DSection 80Section 80ISection 80l

…in (J1\IPT) had contracted to make assured payments as stated in paragraph 5 of the said order. Further the view held by the A.0 regarding assured payments and advance received was considered by the ITAT in appellant's own case for the A.Y 2000-01 reported in 94 ITD 411(Mum) and it has been held in paragraph 46 of the order as Under:- "46. _ We have noticed above that the amendment brought in by the- Finance Act, 1999 was with the sole intention/ purpose of providing deduction under section 80-IA to the person, who only develops or who only maintains and operates an infrastructure facility. If a person who only d…

ACIT, Chennai vs. B.Dhanasekaran, Chennai

ITA 360/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.N. Devanathan, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…lity 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 Construct…

Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Central (94 ITD 411) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax