“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in I

ITA 5396/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A/RFor Respondent: Mr. P.C. Chhotoray, Spl. Counsel, [D/R]

Section 10Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

concluded that the assessee not being an infrastructure capital company or infrastructure capital fund set-up for mobilizing resources for the purpose of financing infrastructure facilities is not eligible to claim exemption under section 10(23G) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee's claim for exemption for an amount ... Without prejudice to his aforesaid conclusion, the Assessing Officer also held that the expenditure attributable to earning of exempt income from investment in infrastructure facilities as claimed by the assessee are also to be disallowed on account of interest cost and administrative cost. Following his methodology for preceding assessment year

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Hand the AO although agreed that the ultimate goal of the Assessee “BMRCL” is to develop infrastructure but is of opinion that the said infrastructure facility will be ultimately used for the commercial exploitation. (iv) The AO also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... cold storages, processing units and export house. In order to harness the potentiality and to increase exports. Further KAPPEC has proposed to create these infrastructure facilities in various parts of State in a phased manner and efforts will also be made to rope in funds from Government of India under

Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Vlcc Health Care Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4414/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekaddl.Cit, Special Range 9, Vs. Vlcc Health Care Ltd., New Delhi. M – 14, Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi - 110 048. (Pan : Aaacc4808P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Ms. Rinky Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 09.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 08.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2009 For The Ay 2009-10 Declaring An Income Of Rs.14,34,56,042. The Case Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 2 143(2) & 142 (1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Filed The Relevant Information As Called For. 3. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Slimming & Beauty Services. The Assessee Has Not Disclosed Any Other Source Of Income During The Year. During Assessment Proceedings, Ao Observed That The Assessee Is Carrying Substantial Credit Balances As Current Liabilities Under The Head ‘Advance From Customers’. The Assessee Was Asked To Explain Along With Supporting Documents. Assessee Vide Its Letter Dated 22.11.2011 Submitted As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 29

opinion from M/s Vaish Associates regarding the deduction of tax at source on the payments made to Collaborators I Joint Venture Partners under the Infrastructure Facility Management Agreement wherein the Professionals opined on the facts of the case that no tax is to be deducted at source on such payments

T and T Infra Limited, Pune vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 291/PUN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 T & T Infra Limited Acit, Circle – 7, Pune A-1, Vishnu Vihar, Bibwewadi Vs. Kondhwa Road, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aaect3902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Ghia Department By : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Tarun GhiaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari and Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 80I

Assessing Officer and which read as under: "The assessee has claimed deduction 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act in respect of 44 infrastructure facilities developed by it. The list of these infrastructure facilities along with description of the infrastructure facilities the name and address of the Government Authorities Awarding ... project, the date of the allotment of the project and the turnover in respect of each infrastructure facilities has been furnished while making the claim of the deduction. Out of the 44 infrastructure facilities/projects, 39 infrastructure facilities/projects have been directly awarded by the Government Authorities to the assessee

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Co. Circle - II (3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 677/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has earned interest on debentures which were issued to the entities engaged in development of infrastructure facility in India. The interest was earned in normal course of assessee’s lending business and the same was considered for deduction ... viii) of the Act including the explanation where the meaning of eligible business under clause ‘b’ is normally mentioned as development of infrastructure facility in India. In our view, debenture proceeds have been utilized for infrastructure development and also the tenure thereof is more than 5 years, the interest earned

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 878/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee has earned interest on debentures which were issued to the entities engaged in development of infrastructure facility in India. The interest was earned in normal course of assessee's lending business and the same was considered for deduction ... viii) of the Act including the explanation where the meaning of eligible business under clause 'b' is normally mentioned as development of infrastructure facility in India. In our view, debenture proceeds have been utilized for infrastructure development and also the tenure thereof is more than 5 years, the interest earned

DCIT CC- 1(3), Aaykar Bhavan vs. Montecarlo Limited, Sindhu Bhawan Road, Bodakdev

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 599/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

lead case. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, is a private limited company, engaged in the business of development of infrastructure facilities namely development of Roads, Bridges, Irrigation canals, etc. For the Asst. Year 2018-19 assessee filed its return of income on 30-09-2018 declaring ... accordingly held that the assessee company has not derived any income from developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility. The assessee company has only derived income as per contract receipt and is not a developer but a ‘works contractors’, as per explanation inserted

DCIT CC- 1(3), Aaykar Bhawan vs. Montecarlo Limited, Montecarlo House, Sindhu Bhawa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 598/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

Subhash E. Dhargave, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Funds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10Section 10(35)

convention centre with seating capacity of more than three thousand; or (H) developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility as defined in the Explanation to clause (i) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA; or (ii) dairy or poultry industry” 15. In relation

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Megha Engineering and Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1499/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecm7627A

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

Section 1Section 14ASection 80I

agreement with the Central Government or State Government or a local authority, or any other statutory body for developing, operating, and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. In the present case, the appellant has claimed deduction in respect of profits derived from projects awarded to JV/ Consortia in light of agreement ... Central government or State Government or local authority or any authority for developing, operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. The appellant claims that it has satisfied clause (a) of Section 80IA(4) of the Act, because as a constituent partner of JV /Consortia

Vijay M. Mistry Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. NFAC (Delhi) AO Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1105/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80I

safety and security of project and human resources, compliances of various statutory rules and laws. Therefore, merely because in the agreement for development of infrastructure facility, assessee is referred to as contractor or because if some basic specifications are laid down, it does not detract the assessee from the position ... Vijay M. Mistry Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT safely come to the conclusion that the assessee is engaged in development of the infrastructure facility and therefore, a developer, which entails the assessee to claim benefits under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Thus, the issue of claim of deduction under

Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Cir-14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3788/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal RapelliFor Respondent: Shri Savya Sachi Kumar

Section 12Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(li)

depreciation on Project Road u/s 12 of Act, treating the same as "Intangible assets". The Appellant prays that the right to set up an "infrastructure facility' and collect annuity thereon being in the nature of a "license" or "business' or 'commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset in terms ... erred in not following the jurisdiction as well as other Tribunal decisions where it was held that licence to set up the infrastructure facility is an 'intangible asset' and thus granted depreciation at the rate of 25% on the project road considering the same under intangible asset under section

Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 3787/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal RapelliFor Respondent: Shri Savya Sachi Kumar

Section 12Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 32(1)(li)

depreciation on Project Road u/s 12 of Act, treating the same as "Intangible assets". The Appellant prays that the right to set up an “infrastructure facility’ and collect annuity thereon being in the nature of a "license" or "business' or ‘commercial right' be regarded as an "intangible asset in terms ... erred in not following the jurisdiction as well as other Tribunal decisions where it was held that licence to set up the infrastructure facility is an ‘intangible asset' and thus granted depreciation at the rate of 25% on the project road considering the same under intangible asset under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5 1, Bhopal, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh vs. Mapaex Remedies Pvt Ltd, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 510/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80

borne by the assessee. 7.17 All these facts clearly show that the assessee had been carrying out the manufacturing activity by availing the infrastructure facility not owned by it for which a valid license as required by law had been obtained by it. 7.18 Another ground of disallowance is that