← All Phrases

“infrastructure facility”

DeductionsSection 80IA(4)Section 80IA(4)531 judgments

The decision most relied on for infrastructure facility is CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (322 ITR 323), cited in 229 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on infrastructure facility

CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.
322 ITR 323 · 2010 · High Court
229
citing judgments

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.

M/s. GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT
51 SOT 207 · 2012 · ITAT
89
citing judgments

Deduction under section 80-IA is available to developers who undertake entrepreneurial investment risk, not merely to contractors who undertake business risk. The nature of the work undertaken determines eligibility.

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
8 SCC 481 · 2002 · Reported
81
citing judgments

Educational institutions are not commercial activities, and collecting fees for betterment and growth does not automatically disqualify them from being considered educational. Fees collected for value-added courses, training, or hostel facilities can be eligible for exemption under Section 11 if applied towards the institution's infrastructure.

Katira Construction Ltd. v. UOI
31 Taxmann.com 250 · 2013 · High Court
77
citing judgments

A person entering into a works contract with an enterprise eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA is not entitled to claim the tax benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act.

Katira Constructions Limited v. Union of India and Others
352 ITR 513 · 2013 · High Court
70
citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court holds that the explanation to Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, regarding works contracts for infrastructure facilities, is clarificatory and explanatory in nature, not an amendment with retrospective effect. Its vires are upheld as it does not levy tax retrospectively.

CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
324 ITR 199 · 2010 · High Court
69
citing judgments

A taxpayer is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA for developing and operating infrastructure facilities, with the decision clarifying the distinction between a contractor and a developer for this purpose.

Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd.
141 ITD 151 · 2013 · ITAT
64
citing judgments

Where an assessee invests its own funds in an infrastructure development project, it is presumed to be acting as a developer, not merely a contractor, making it eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).

B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Construction P. Ltd. v. ACIT
126 TTJ 577 · 2009 · ITAT
63
citing judgments

A Special Bench decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning Section 80IA deduction for infrastructure facility developers can be recalled if it fails to consider a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment.

Judgments citing infrastructure facility

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 918/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

year under consideration, which is arbitrary. 6.6 In view of the above and the factual matrix, examination of the projects reflecting the development of infrastructure facility, operation & maintenance, defect correction during liability period, financial risk/involvement etc. furnished by the appellant and acceptance of the claim in the subsequent years

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 917/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 80I

year under consideration, which is arbitrary. 6.6 In view of the above and the factual matrix, examination of the projects reflecting the development of infrastructure facility, operation & maintenance, defect correction during liability period, financial risk/involvement etc. furnished by the appellant and acceptance of the claim in the subsequent years

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Koya and Company Construction Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 916/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

year under consideration, which is arbitrary. 6.6 In view of the above and the factual matrix, examination of the projects reflecting the development of infrastructure facility, operation & maintenance, defect correction during liability period, financial risk/involvement etc. furnished by the appellant and acceptance of the claim in the subsequent years

Naba Diganta Water Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 434/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)

Jamshedpur Utility and Services Co. Ltd. and Voltas Ltd.in accordance with Development Agreement dated 08.09.2007 with Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority for setting up an infrastructure facility of a water supply and sewerage plant catering to Sector-V, Salt Lake , Kolkata on a Build Operate Transfer basis for a period ... remanded to the Assessing Officer for examination ofthe claim on merits.” 7. Facts in brief are that the assessee has set up an infrastructure facility in 2008 which was completed and commissioned in 2010 whereby the assessee was providing water and sewerage connection in Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai. vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4944/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.4940/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

there is no reference to the term 'road widening' anywhere in work order and has not carried out any work of development of new infrastructure facility or maintaining the same." 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) failed ... INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4940/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4942/Mum/2024 Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4944/Mum/2024 whereas section 801A stipulates development or maintenance of infrastructure facility." 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai. vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4942/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

carried out widening' anywhere in work order and has not carried out any work of any work of development of new infrastructure facility or development of new infrastructure facility or maintaining the same." maintaining the same." 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 4. "Whether ... I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 3 whereas whereas whereas section section section 801A 801A 801A stipulates stipulates stipulates development development development or or or maintenance of infrastructure facility." maintenance of infrastructure facility." 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 5. "Whether on the facts

DCIT-1(2)1, Mumbai vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue s filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S., Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 801A

carried out widening' anywhere in work order and has not carried out any work of any work of development of new infrastructure facility or development of new infrastructure facility or maintaining the same." maintaining the same." 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 4. "Whether ... I.T.A. No. 4944/Mum/2024 3 whereas whereas whereas section section section 801A 801A 801A stipulates stipulates stipulates development development development or or or maintenance of infrastructure facility." maintenance of infrastructure facility." 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 5. "Whether on the facts

M/S. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 89/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Explanation to Section 801A as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct ... holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee- company

M/S. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd., Belpahar, Jharsuguda vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 88/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Explanation to Section 801A as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct ... holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee- company

Asst. CIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Shree Balaji Engicon Limited, Belpahar Rs

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 320/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Explanation to Section 801A as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct ... holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee- company

M/S. Shree Baalaji Engicons Limited, Jharsuguda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central Circle-1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 296/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Explanation to Section 801A as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct ... holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee- company

ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. M/S. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd., Jharsuguda

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 142/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Explanation to Section 801A as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct ... holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee- company

ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. M/S. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd., Jharsuguda

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 141/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Explanation to Section 801A as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct ... holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee- company

ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur vs. M/S. Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd., Jharsuguda

In the result, appeals of the assesee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 13/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalit(Ss)A No.77/Ctk/2023

Section 153ASection 194CSection 80Section 801A

Explanation to Section 801A as borrowed from section 194C applies only to labour contract and not to a composite contract of construction of an infrastructure facility. 3 IT(SS)A No.77 & ITA Nos.320,296,88, 141,89,142,13/CTK/2023 &CO No.02/CTK/2023 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not correct ... holding that the infrastructure facility executed by the assessee (Contractor) can be considered to be owned by it within the meaning of item (a) of clause (i) of sub section (4) of Section 801A. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Contract receipts received by assessee- company

Siraj Ahmed Shah, Mumbai vs. Ward 42 (1) (4) and CIT, Mumbai

Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3815/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, AR
Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

legally correct in relying on Circular No. 18/2009 dated 08/06/2009 issued by CBEC under a different enactment when the definition of 'infrastructure facility' is provided u/s. 80IA(4) and clarified by the CBDT." 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... correct position of law. 12. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation Ltd. (supra) held as follows: “The term “infrastructure facility” was defined in section 80- IA(12)(ca) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to mean a road, highway, bridge, airport, port or rail

Celestial Avenues Pvt Ltd Rep. by Csk Properties Pvt Ltd on Merger-PAN-Aadcc3990R, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 212/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha G, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.212 To 214/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Sabir, Sew & The Deputy Commissioner Of Prasad, Jv, Vs. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Abcfs2425A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

deduction u/s.801A of Rs.29,06,918/- made by the A.O. 3. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have seen that the Appellant has developed infrastructure facilities by constructing the infrastructure and was not a works contractor for the government.” 3 SABIR, SEW & PRASAD JV 3. Thereafter, assessee has filed additional grounds ... furnished its submissions on 23.01.2015. After verification of documents and submissions filed by the assessee, Assessing Officer opined that assessee has not developed any infrastructure facility and hence, not eligible for deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer the determined the total income of the assessee

Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS)2(1), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3068/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
Section 194ASection 201

deduction u/s. 80IA(4) which was claimed at Rs.67,44,14,606/- holding that assessee is not eligible because for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(1) infrastructure facility should not only be developed but also operated by the assessee so as to make the profits derived from the infrastructure facility qualify ... deduction u/s. 80IA. Unless assessee really develops and begins to operate infrastructure facility, there is no question of granting any deduction for the reason that the period of deduction cannot commence unless the enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility. After analysing the Section 801A in great detail

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS 2 1, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3065/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
Section 194ASection 201

deduction u/s. 80IA(4) which was claimed at Rs.67,44,14,606/- holding that assessee is not eligible because for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(1) infrastructure facility should not only be developed but also operated by the assessee so as to make the profits derived from the infrastructure facility qualify ... deduction u/s. 80IA. Unless assessee really develops and begins to operate infrastructure facility, there is no question of granting any deduction for the reason that the period of deduction cannot commence unless the enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility. After analysing the Section 801A in great detail

DCIT CC - 3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3063/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024
Section 194ASection 201

deduction u/s. 80IA(4) which was claimed at Rs.67,44,14,606/- holding that assessee is not eligible because for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(1) infrastructure facility should not only be developed but also operated by the assessee so as to make the profits derived from the infrastructure facility qualify ... deduction u/s. 80IA. Unless assessee really develops and begins to operate infrastructure facility, there is no question of granting any deduction for the reason that the period of deduction cannot commence unless the enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility. After analysing the Section 801A in great detail

DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3061/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024
Section 194ASection 201

deduction u/s. 80IA(4) which was claimed at Rs.67,44,14,606/- holding that assessee is not eligible because for claiming deduction u/s.80IA(1) infrastructure facility should not only be developed but also operated by the assessee so as to make the profits derived from the infrastructure facility qualify ... deduction u/s. 80IA. Unless assessee really develops and begins to operate infrastructure facility, there is no question of granting any deduction for the reason that the period of deduction cannot commence unless the enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility. After analysing the Section 801A in great detail