infrastructure facility — 531 case laws

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

ITA 2802/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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 80IA in great detail

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Hisar vs. Synergy Waste Management Private Limited, Hisar

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3557/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3557/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Circle, Ltd., #168, Sector-27-28, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-125001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics9088H Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/105727025(1) Dated 20.10.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 4Section 801A(4)Section 80I

assessee enters into an agreement with the Central Govt., or the Stale Govt., or local body or any other statutory body for carrying out infrastructure facilities. Without complying with these conditions, the assessee cannot be allowed to enjoy deduction u/s 80IA. In the instant case, assessee has not entered into ... assesses is neither carrying on nor engaged in the business of (i) Developing or (ii) Operating & maintaining of (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructural facility and not entered into agreement with the Central Govt., Stale Govt., or Local authorities or any other statutory body for providing such facilities

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Prism Johnson Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5685/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 5685/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT, D/R

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jitf Water Infra (Naya Raipur) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2457/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra, Ita No:- 2457/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. and Shri Saksham Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)

under: (a) NRDA, a special development authority established for development and administration of Naya Raipur, invited bids for creating and developing basic infrastructure facilities, being water supply/treatment system in Naya Raipur. (b) The assessee was awarded the contract on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis for development and operation ... relevant accounting principles and with the CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2014 dated 23.04.2014 which provides that the expenditure incurred for development of the infrastructure facility is to be claimed as deferred revenue expenditure post completion of the project. Therefore, the adjustment made by the Ld. AO being contrary

C.E.S.Onyx Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Shri I. Dinesh & Shri A.Sathaseelan, Advocates Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2024 04.12.2024 Per Jagadish, A.M : आदेश / Order Aforesaid Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2004-05 To 2007-08 Arises Out Of The Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1 [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 27.03.2009 & Ld. Cit(A)-4, Chennai Dated 30.01.2020.

Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80i

assessee is against confirming the disallowance of the claim u/s. 801A(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) in respect of infrastructure facility in the form of solid waste management made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. ITA Nos.565 to 568/Chny/2020 - 3 -: 4. The brief ... collection and disposal of municipal waste, the assessee has claimed the business of collection and disposal of municipal solid waste as infrastructure facility and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act as under: SI. No. 1. 2. 3 4. A.Y 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Disallowance

C.E.S.Onyx Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 567/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, Vs. Income Tax, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D]

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Shri I. Dinesh &For Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80i

assessee is against confirming the disallowance of the claim u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) in respect of infrastructure facility in the form of solid waste management made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. ITA Nos.565 to 568/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 4. The brief ... collection and disposal of municipal waste, the assessee has claimed the business of collection and disposal of municipal solid waste as infrastructure facility and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act as under: Sl. A.Y Disallowance u/s. 80IA

C.E.S.Onyx Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 566/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, Vs. Income Tax, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D]

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Shri I. Dinesh &For Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80i

assessee is against confirming the disallowance of the claim u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) in respect of infrastructure facility in the form of solid waste management made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. ITA Nos.565 to 568/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 4. The brief ... collection and disposal of municipal waste, the assessee has claimed the business of collection and disposal of municipal solid waste as infrastructure facility and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act as under: Sl. A.Y Disallowance u/s. 80IA

C.E.S.Onyx Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 565/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.565, 566, 567 & 568/Chny/2020 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Ces Onyx Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 46-B, Iv Floor, Krishnan Complex, Vs. Income Tax, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Company Circle-1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 1396D]

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Shri I. Dinesh &For Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80i

assessee is against confirming the disallowance of the claim u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) in respect of infrastructure facility in the form of solid waste management made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. ITA Nos.565 to 568/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 4. The brief ... collection and disposal of municipal waste, the assessee has claimed the business of collection and disposal of municipal solid waste as infrastructure facility and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act as under: Sl. A.Y Disallowance u/s. 80IA

SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR &

Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

assessing officer has stated that assessee has merely executed a works contract and assessee is not a developer of an infrastructural facility as envisaged in Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee submitted that in works contract agreements there were clauses in the agreement like planning, designing, providing and laying ... automation etc. carried out at the various stages of development of infrastructure facility. It was also submitted that 3 SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2018-19 after development of a particular infra facility the assessee as a developer also need to maintain it for defect liability period and provide guarantee

Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Prathima Infrastructure Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Filmnagar, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabcp2098P. (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 80I

applies to- (i). any enterprise carrying in 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 ... local authority or any statutory body for (i). Developing or (ii). Operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility;] 6 (c). it has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st Day of April 1995. Provided that where

M/S. Lakshmi Narayana Constructions, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1958/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1958/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) M/S. Lakshmi Narayana Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Constructions, Non Corporate Ward 10(6) No.10, Kalaimagal Nagar, Chennai. Kolathur, Chennai 600 099. [Pan: Aacfl 6543K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms.Lekha, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. V. Justin, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms.Lekha, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. V. Justin, IRS, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

cannot be treated as a works contractor. It is also argued that the assessee firm was assigned construction and development of the infrastructure facility and hence the claim of the assessee firm is in order. However, Ld. Assessing Officer opined that the assessee firm was given only contracts work ... clearly not applicable. Ld.CIT(A) after perusal of the terms and conditions of the contracts observed that the appellant did not develop any new infrastructure facility but only rendered services of civil work in the form of repairing and maintenance of the existing road. As there was no development