“infrastructure facility”

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

contractual ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., 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 to appreciate ... 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." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

contractual ITA.No. 2933/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. No. 259 & 260/MUM/2018 M/s. Patel Engineering Ltd., 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 to appreciate ... 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." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Aci T-CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

primary conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are that the assessee should be a 'developer of an infrastructure facility; that the developer is an entrepreneur who has an fees; that the developer undertakes the total responsibility for development and completion of the projects, bears the entire ... that it merely executed a works contract. The ld. AO was therefore of the view, that the assessee is not a 'developer' of an 'infrastructural facility' as envisaged in sec.80IA of the Act and therefore is not eligible for the deduction. The ld. AO has also mentioned that

Aci T-CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

primary conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are that the assessee should be a 'developer of an infrastructure facility; that the developer is an entrepreneur who has an fees; that the developer undertakes the total responsibility for development and completion of the projects, bears the entire ... that it merely executed a works contract. The ld. AO was therefore of the view, that the assessee is not a 'developer' of an 'infrastructural facility' as envisaged in sec.80IA of the Act and therefore is not eligible for the deduction. The ld. AO has also mentioned that

Aci -CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Thane

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

primary conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are that the assessee should be a 'developer of an infrastructure facility; that the developer is an entrepreneur who has an fees; that the developer undertakes the total responsibility for development and completion of the projects, bears the entire ... that it merely executed a works contract. The ld. AO was therefore of the view, that the assessee is not a 'developer' of an 'infrastructural facility' as envisaged in sec.80IA of the Act and therefore is not eligible for the deduction. The ld. AO has also mentioned that

Aci -CC-2, Thane vs. SMC Infrastructures P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

primary conditions for claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act are that the assessee should be a 'developer of an infrastructure facility; that the developer is an entrepreneur who has an fees; that the developer undertakes the total responsibility for development and completion of the projects, bears the entire ... that it merely executed a works contract. The ld. AO was therefore of the view, that the assessee is not a 'developer' of an 'infrastructural facility' as envisaged in sec.80IA of the Act and therefore is not eligible for the deduction. The ld. AO has also mentioned that

Kokan Mercantila Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-20(2), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the orders of authorities below and direct to allow the deduction u/s

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalkokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Harbour Crest, 1St Floor, Mazagaon, Mumbai-400010. Pan: Aaaak2527P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-20(2), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. M. Subramanian, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.12.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

clause (iv) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for— (A) Industrial or agricultural development. (B) Development of infrastructure facility in India; or (C) Development of housing in India;] (ii) in respect of the specified entity referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (a), the business ... respect of the specified entity referred to in sub-clause (vi) of clause (a), the business of providing long-term finance for development of infrastructure facility in India. (c) "Banking company" means a company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies and includes any bank

Lions Club of Malad Borivali Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemptions, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lions Club Of Malad Borivali Cit Exemptions, Charity Trust, 601,6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills, Pd Lions College, Sv Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026. Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaatl 1407 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Shankarlal Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

assessee was allowed to incur the amount received for development assessee was allowed to incur the amount received for development fund against creating creating infrastructure facility and therefore, infrastructure facility and therefore, it was separately transferred to said fund and separately transferred to said fund and expenditure expenditure has been

West Gujarat Exdpress Way Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

rights. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd. ITA No.2496/Mum./2021 and ITA no.483/Mum./2021 The total cost incurred by the assessee for construction of the infrastructure facility being told road is Rs. 275,90,19,670, which have been capitalised in the books of accounts as fixed asset and the assessee ... fact that the costs capitalised by the assessee under the head 'License to collect Toll' have been incurred for development and construction of the infrastructure facility, i.e., Dewas Bypass Road. It is also not in dispute that the assessee was to build, operate and transfer the said infrastructure facility

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

rights. West Gujarat Express Way Ltd. ITA No.2496/Mum./2021 and ITA no.483/Mum./2021 The total cost incurred by the assessee for construction of the infrastructure facility being told road is Rs. 275,90,19,670, which have been capitalised in the books of accounts as fixed asset and the assessee ... fact that the costs capitalised by the assessee under the head 'License to collect Toll' have been incurred for development and construction of the infrastructure facility, i.e., Dewas Bypass Road. It is also not in dispute that the assessee was to build, operate and transfer the said infrastructure facility

M/S. Arshiya Rail Infrastucture Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

record, are: The assessee is a private limited company incorporated in India and is engaged in the business of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility etc. to Indian Railways. For the year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2012 under section 139(1) of the Act declaring ... Profit at Rs.8,14,83,873/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. 1.1 The assessee is engaged into the business of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities which consist of PAN India Rail Freight Operation on India Railway Network. 2. Subsequently, information has been received from the office of the Deputy

Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rajamundry Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Us :-

transferred all the duties and responsibilities contained in the 'Concession Agreement to M/s. Gammon India Ltd. for the operation and maintenance of the infrastructural facility, and the assessee-company has only acted as a conduit between the NHAI and M/s. Gammon India Ltd. 2. On the facts and the circumstances ... information charts and Schedule D 'Project Facilities' of Concession Agreement, whereas the deduction u/s 801A is available only for development of the new infrastructure facility. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

assessee was awarded the work of constructing a part of the National Highway no.5, under BOT basis. Therefore, entire investment/finance for developing the infrastructure facility was borne by the assessee. By making such investment what the assessee received in return was a right to collect annuity over the period

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

assessee was awarded the work of constructing a part of the National Highway no.5, under BOT basis. Therefore, entire investment/finance for developing the infrastructure facility was borne by the assessee. By making such investment what the assessee received in return was a right to collect annuity over the period

Dy CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.849/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2013-14) आअसं.850/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2014-15) आअसं.851/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-7(2),Mumbai, Room No.655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. Aaecm-3349-K . ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Achal Sharma ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

assessee was awarded the work of constructing a part of the National Highway no.5, under BOT basis. Therefore, entire investment/finance for developing the infrastructure facility was borne by the assessee. By making such investment what the assessee received in return was a right to collect annuity over the period

Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mumbai Nashik Expressway Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejt.Cit(Osd)-Central Circle -7(2) V. M/S. Mumbai Nasik Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, Aayakar Bhavan Unit 803, 8Th Floor, A-Wing, One Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aaecm3349K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Kabra Department By : Shri Rajesh Damor

added back to its total income. Assessee submitted that during the previous years, the assessee company had incurred expenditure on construction and development of infrastructure facility which inter-alia gave certain responsibilities, obligations and right to collect toll under Article III-Grant of Concession of Concession Agreement and has classified ... assessee was awarded the work of constructing a part of the National Highway no.5, under BOT basis. Therefore, entire investment/finance for developing the infrastructure facility was borne by the assessee. By making such investment what the assessee received in return was a right to collect annuity over the period

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

certificate, Balance sheet and profit and loss account and notes to Accounts for claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act- power generation and infrastructure facility . The Ld. AR emphasized that the A.O. has raised the query in the course of assessment proceedings and the assessee has filed the reply ... claimed deduction totaling to Rs. 5,11,96,658/- which includes deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 4,14,87,701/- in respect of infrastructure facility incinerator and Rs. 91,52,577 in aspect of power unit at Lote. It is further seen that the assessee company has claimed exemption / deduction

Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Andhra Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1589/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jcit (Osd), Cc-7(2), M/S Andhra Expressway Ltd. R. No. 655, Aayakar बनाम/ Ground Floor, Gammon Bhavan, M. K. Road, House, Veer Savarkar Vs. Mumbai-400020 Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadca3577E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By Shri Rakesh Joshi, Ld. Ar : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 01.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 29.06.2021, Passed By 2

transferred all the duties and responsibilities contained in the 'Concession Agreement' to M/s. Gammon India Ltd. for the operation and maintenance of the infrastructural facility, and the assessee-company has only acted as a conduit between the NHAI and M/s. Gammon India Ltd. 3 I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2021 M/s Andhra ... information charts and Schedule D 'Project Facilities' of Concession Agreement, whereas the deduction u/s SOLA is available only for development of the new infrastructure facility. 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing the appeal

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indo Energy International Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Indo Energy Ito – 6(3)(1), International Pvt. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. बिधम/ 1St Floor, J. V. House, Road, Mumbai-400051 Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. D. S. Babrekar Marg, Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabci1739A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Jain, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 05.07.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12

passed u/s 147, the same issue has been disallowed once again, wherein AO has he held that the cost of construction of development of infrastructure facility under BOOT projects is to be amortized and claimed as allowable business expenditure under the Act. The amortization allowable is to be computed ... rate which ensures that the whole of the cost incurred in creation of infrastructural facility is amortized evenly over the period of concessionaire agreement after excluding the time taken for 5 I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2018 M/s Indo Energy International Pvt. Ltd. creation of such facility. In the instant case, the assessee