← 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

ACIT 23-1, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M
Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

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

ACIT-231, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 368/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M
Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

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

ACIT, Piramal Chambers vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

ITA 194/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Senbo Engineering Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata.

ITA 1377/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2007-08 Senbo Engineering Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 87, Lenin Sarani, Vs Income Tax, Circle-11, Kolkata - 700013 Kolkata - 700013 (Pan: Aadcs6138B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

That the assessee has been carrying on the business of developing and maintaining flyovers and metro railway which fall under the category of infrastructure facility under explanation to section 80- IA(4)(i); (b) That it carried on developmental works in pursuance of agreement entered into with prescribed authority ... section 80-IA(4)(i) had been amended to allow deduction u/s 80-IA to a business of developing any infrastructure facility and therefore the intention of the Government was to allow deduction; (g) That Land would always belong to the government and only when person other than government undertakes

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

after hearing the parties. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction including infrastructure facilities. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on the business/residential premises of the APCO ... State Government) to assessee for infrastructure development and nature of work is also mention against each work carried by assessee relating to infrastructure facility. Assessee while claiming deduction u/s 801A had fulfilled all the parameters / conditions, which are defined in relevant section. The relevant provision of Section 801A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. Unipro Techno Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Chandigarh

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

projects earlier taken by the assessee which have already been held to be eligible for deduction u/s 80IA (4)of the Act being Infrastructure Facility Development Project nor the Ld. PCIT could point out from the clauses of the agreement that they would not fall within the definition of infrastructure ... contracts. The Assessing officer has duly taken note of the nature of contact entered into by the assessee and held that the same were infrastructure facilities development contracts and eligible for deduction w/s 80IA of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Assessing Officer

Kl Envitech Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2869/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav A Potdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D.Chougule (Addl.CIT) SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 801A(4)Section 80I

that the provision would apply to an enterprise engaged in (1) developing, or (ii) operating and maintaining, or(iii) developing, operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility was reflective of a position which was always construed to hold the field. Before the amendment that was brought about by Parliament ... case and the submissions made by the appellant. In the present case, the appellant has claimed that it is operating and maintaining an Infrastructure Facility for Solid Waste Management System. A perusal of Section 801A(4) of the Act suggests that what will constitute an Infrastructure Facility for Solid Waste

M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1916/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

80IA(4): The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.295,58,08,285/-u/s. 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act for operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility. The AO has disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section 80IA ... Government of Local Authority or any other Statutory Body (which in this case is Gujarat Maritime Board] for developing or operating and maintaining new infrastructure facility namely Port, and therefore assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4). 3.1. The assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1872/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

80IA(4): The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.295,58,08,285/-u/s. 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act for operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility. The AO has disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section 80IA ... Government of Local Authority or any other Statutory Body (which in this case is Gujarat Maritime Board] for developing or operating and maintaining new infrastructure facility namely Port, and therefore assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4). 3.1. The assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch

ITA 1711/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

80IA(4): The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.295,58,08,285/-u/s. 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act for operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility. The AO has disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section 80IA ... Government of Local Authority or any other Statutory Body (which in this case is Gujarat Maritime Board] for developing or operating and maintaining new infrastructure facility namely Port, and therefore assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4). 3.1. The assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business

Mundra International Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Kutch vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1613/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14A

80IA(4): The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.295,58,08,285/-u/s. 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act for operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility. The AO has disallowed the claim u/s. 801A(4) on the ground that assessee has not satisfied the condition laid down in section 80IA ... Government of Local Authority or any other Statutory Body (which in this case is Gujarat Maritime Board] for developing or operating and maintaining new infrastructure facility namely Port, and therefore assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4). 3.1. The assessee submitted that it is engaged in the business

Vandana Properties, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) Faceless, Mumbai

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

ITA 3138/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vandana Properties, B 602, Prem Nagar No. 6, Mcf Udyan Marg, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aaafv3003E ..... Appellant Vs. Cit (A) /Nfac Delhi Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai- 400 051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Dalal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 801B(10)Section 80I

No.MCHI:RSA:m:388/19799/3 dated 1st January 2001 and to state that the additional housing project on existing housing project site can qualify as infrastructure facility under Section 10(23G) of the Act and 80IB (10)of the Act provided it is taken up by a separate undertaking, having separate

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S. Gondwan A Engineers Ltd, Nagpur

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

ITA 420/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 8Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80ASection 80I

entered into by the assessee with various Municipal Corporation and Govt. Authorities were in the nature of works contract and not the contract of infrastructure facility as contemplated in section 801A(4) Explanation (c) i.e., water supply project, water treatment system etc., and hence the assessee was not entitled

The ACIT., Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 1673/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise ... deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 1620/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise ... deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 1230/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise ... deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 3121/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise ... deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2308/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise ... deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2307/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise ... deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2306/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

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

which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise ... deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure