← 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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Gateway East India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Fenil Amit Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the definition of infrastructure facility as defined U/s. 80IA(4) includes ‘a port, airport, inland water way, inland port or navigational channel in the sea’ but does not include Container Freight ... 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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Berth constructed by it. Since the issue was debatable due to conflicting decisions regarding the allowability of depreciation for the developer of the infrastructure facility it is found that the AO has reopened the case U/s. 147. This reopening by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be a change ... Circular which is reproduced below: 11 “7. In the case where an assessee has claimed any deduction out of initial cost of development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT projects in earlier years, the total deduction so claimed for the Assessment Years prior to the Assessment Year under consideration

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner Or Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 83/VIZ/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Berth constructed by it. Since the issue was debatable due to conflicting decisions regarding the allowability of depreciation for the developer of the infrastructure facility it is found that the AO has reopened the case U/s. 147. This reopening by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be a change ... Circular which is reproduced below: 11 “7. In the case where an assessee has claimed any deduction out of initial cost of development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT projects in earlier years, the total deduction so claimed for the Assessment Years prior to the Assessment Year under consideration

Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-12) Vizag Seaport Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Abepr 5035 K Circel-5(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Berth constructed by it. Since the issue was debatable due to conflicting decisions regarding the allowability of depreciation for the developer of the infrastructure facility it is found that the AO has reopened the case U/s. 147. This reopening by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be a change ... Circular which is reproduced below: 11 “7. In the case where an assessee has claimed any deduction out of initial cost of development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT projects in earlier years, the total deduction so claimed for the Assessment Years prior to the Assessment Year under consideration

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1150/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dcit- 14(1)(2) Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Kalpataru Synergy, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Santacruz (E) Vs. Mumbai-400020 Opp. Grand Gyatt Hote. Mumbai-400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv9092R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Aggarwal : Shri. Prakash Choughule Revenue By : 04.07.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AggarwalFor Respondent: 04.07.2023
Section 250

brief facts are that the assessee company is special purpose vehicle SPV incorporated as private company engaged in the construction, development and maintenance of infrastructure facility of roads, highways etc. along with maintaining toll 2 DCIT V/S M/S VINDYACHAL EXPRESSWAY PVT. LTD. plaza. The Assessee has filed its return

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

contractor as the agreement entered into by the assessee with various government authorities is for contractual work and not to develop/operate and maintain any infrastructure facilities to which deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) is intended to and allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the IT Act, 1961 and failed ... with respect to M24 is concerned, the Id. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that infrastructure facility, being developed under this project cannot be considered as "new" infrastructure (refer para 6.21) at page 74 of the impugned order. We find that the assessee has merely

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

contractor as the agreement entered into by the assessee with various government authorities is for contractual work and not to develop/operate and maintain any infrastructure facilities to which deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) is intended to and allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the IT Act, 1961 and failed ... with respect to M24 is concerned, the Id. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that infrastructure facility, being developed under this project cannot be considered as "new" infrastructure (refer para 6.21) at page 74 of the impugned order. We find that the assessee has merely

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

Raipur District. It is the claim of the assessee that to facilitate the inward and upward movement of goods, the assessee company developed an infrastructure facility for the rail system and the same satisfies the conditions for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. We find that the assessee ... Railway Siding was at a distance of around 20 kilometres from the plant. To facilitate inward and outward movement of goods, the appellant developed infrastructure facility of Rail System. which was made operative in September 1999. The appellant company duly entered into an agreement with Southern East Railway, which

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

Raipur District. It is the claim of the assessee that to facilitate the inward and upward movement of goods, the assessee company developed an infrastructure facility for the rail system and the same satisfies the conditions for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. We find that the assessee ... Railway Siding was at a distance of around 20 kilometres from the plant. To facilitate inward and outward movement of goods, the appellant developed infrastructure facility of Rail System. which was made operative in September 1999. The appellant company duly entered into an agreement with Southern East Railway, which

Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle 6(3), Mumbai vs. Beil Infrastructure, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1950/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

respect of Incinerator-I. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act starting from AY 2007-08. The Revenue accepted this position as the findings ... land fill project No.1 in AY 2002-03 that is in the initial year, therefore, deduction under section 80-IA in respect of the infrastructure facility should have been allowed to the assessee. So far as the objection of the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue is concerned that

Beil Infrastructure Limited ('Beil')(Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd), Gujrat vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 586/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

respect of Incinerator-I. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act starting from AY 2007-08. The Revenue accepted this position as the findings ... land fill project No.1 in AY 2002-03 that is in the initial year, therefore, deduction under section 80-IA in respect of the infrastructure facility should have been allowed to the assessee. So far as the objection of the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue is concerned that

DCIT CC 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Beil Infrastructure Ltd. ( Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd, Anlkleshwar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 400/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantvk-Vk-La- 586@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.9701-16, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaacb8075F Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021 Vk-Vk-La- 400@Eaqcbz@2017 ¼Fu-Oa- 2012&13½ Vk-Vk-La- 1950@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2015&16½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-6(3) Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 021 Cuke Vs. Beil Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Limited) Plot No.117/18, Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Gujarat-393 002 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaacb8075F

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar &For Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234CSection 80Section 801A

respect of Incinerator-I. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that incinerator is a new infrastructure facility and eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act starting from AY 2007-08. The Revenue accepted this position as the findings ... land fill project No.1 in AY 2002-03 that is in the initial year, therefore, deduction under section 80-IA in respect of the infrastructure facility should have been allowed to the assessee. So far as the objection of the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue is concerned that

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32ASection 801ASection 80I

being around 83% of the gross receipt of INR 90,62,29,259/-. The Railway Siding Unit was treated as infrastructure facility by the Assessee and therefore, deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act was claimed in respect of Railway Siding Unit. 9.1. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing ... that the railway sidings were being used by the Assessee as a private facility and therefore, the same was not in the nature of infrastructure facility of public utility. The actual operation (i.e. running of goods train) on the private sidings between the serving railway station and the plant premises

M/S Cobra Kcl Jv, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, TDS- Circle, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143Section 220Section 221Section 221(1)

genuine and hence the delay is condoned. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of development of infrastructure facility i.e. construction of roads, dams, water supply etc. on behalf of Government and the assessee is assessed to tax since long. The assessee has already

Ga Infra Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

applies to— (i) any enterprise carrying on 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 other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility; (c) it has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st day of April, 1995: Provided that where

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Wyeth Ltd ( Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3508/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepfizer Limited V. Acit- Special Range 23 (Earlier Known As Wyeth Lederle Limited) [Now The Dcit-Circle 7(3)] The Capital, G-Block Aayakar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai- 400020 Bandra (E), Mumbai -400012 Pan: Aaacp3334M (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit- Ltu V. M/S. Wyeth Limited 28Th Floor, Centre - 1 (Formerly Known As Wyeth Lederle Ltd) Rbc Mahindra Towers World Trade Centre 4Th Floor, A- Wing Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Dr G.M. Bhosale Road Worli, Mumbai- 400055 Pan: Aaacw2641Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vishal Kalra Department Represented By : Smt. Sujatha Iyangar

Section 43(6)Section 80H

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range 23, Mumbai (Addl.CIT) was justified in disallowing commuted fees paid by your appellants to Atul Ltd. towards infrastructural facilities as capital in nature. Page No. 2 ITA NO. 3508/MUM/2010 (A.Y: 2004-05) M/s. Wyeth Limited Your appellants submit that on the facts ... With regard to Ground No. 1 which is in respect of disallowance of commuted fees paid by the Assessee to Atul Ltd. towards infrastructural facilities. Ld. AR brought to our notice relevant facts related to the ground and submitted that the assessee, during the subject assessment year, is engaged

Dy.CIT Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viral Alkalis Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1752/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2016-17
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 801A(7)Section 80ASection 80I

reads as under:- 23.3. The assessee is not doing above activities and therefore it is not falling with in definition of Infrastructure facilities. 1) The assessee is not doing activity of removing harmful substances from water before it is discharged to the environment. Thus assessee cannot be said ... water into environment 4) The assessee is into a business of manufacture of potassium carbonate and caustic potush and not into business of providing infrastructure facility which is prerequisite for claiming deduction u/s 801A(4) of the IT Act 5) P&L account of assessee shows revenue of assessee from

Viramgam Mahesana Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 220/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 220/Del/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 M/S. Viramgam Mahesana Vs. Acit Project Ltd. Cc-14, E-9, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi South Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi 110049 Pan : Aabcv7027L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80I

hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. The facts in brief are the assessee company is engaged in the business of developing of any infrastructure facility and claims that it is eligible for a deduction of an amount equal to 100% of the profits and gains derived from M/s. Viramgam

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

years in respect of profits and gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation, distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating and similar benefit is proposed for laying and operating ... provides as under: any enterprise carrying on 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)… (b)… (c)… ………… Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “infrastructure facility” means – (a) a road including

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

years in respect of profits and gains of certain undertakings or enterprises engaged in the business of development, operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility, industrial parks and special economic zones or generation, distribution or transmission of power, laying and operating and similar benefit is proposed for laying and operating ... provides as under: any enterprise carrying on 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)… (b)… (c)… ………… Explanation – For the purposes of this clause, “infrastructure facility” means – (a) a road including