← 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

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

erred in law and on facts in not giving cognizance that the Appellant is engaged in developing, operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility i.e., an airport and all such activities and revenue therefrom are inextricably linked to the operations and maintenance of the airport. ITA No.191 & 374/Bang/2020 Page ... space by drawing reference to Schedule 3 Part 1 of the concession agreement whereby the assessee is to make investment for providing basic infrastructure facilities only. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee is earning much more than what it would have earned by simply letting out the space / facility

Pria Cetp (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3613/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

plant only.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : assessee company is into the business of operating the infrastructure facility of waste water treatment. During the scrutiny proceedings Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee claimed deduction to the tune of Rs.2

The Jt. Comm of Income Tax (OSD) Cent .Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S D''Decor Properties LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1743/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: This Extended Date, Accordingly, We Hold That There Is No Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Revenue.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

EHTP) Scheme in its meeting held on 27.08,2007 and I am directed to convey the approval of the Government for setting up of infrastructure facility for STP units under the STP Scheme namely "Ambit" located at Plot No. 32A & 32B, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 058". Hon'ble Karnataka

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

holding that the fuel farm facility provided by the Assessee did not fall within the meaning of ‘airport’ and as such was not an “infrastructure facility” for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding ... also operating the aviation fuel facility at Bangalore International Airport. Since the assessee is engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining “infrastructure facility” as defined in Explanation to section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in the return, it claimed deduction under section 80-IA(1) read with

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

holding that the fuel farm facility provided by the Assessee did not fall within the meaning of ‘airport’ and as such was not an “infrastructure facility” for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding ... also operating the aviation fuel facility at Bangalore International Airport. Since the assessee is engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining “infrastructure facility” as defined in Explanation to section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in the return, it claimed deduction under section 80-IA(1) read with

ACIT 1(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazia Developers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2414/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2414/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) The Acit – 1(1)(1), 579, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S.Amazia Developers Pvt. Ltd. 276, 1St Floor, Lwarence & Mayo House, Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aahca-6934-H ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Mehul Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mehul JainFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80I

assessable as Business Income or Income from House Property. The 2 assessee has offered lease rental income of Rs.7,63,04,900/- from infrastructure facility in industrial park as Business Income. The Assessing Officer after examining the facts held that the assessee had purchased industrial park from M/s.Akruti Nirman ... park at Suburban Mumbai. It is also a fact that the said IT Park initially belonged to another entity and was notified as an infrastructure facility eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Though, on purchase of the said IT park, the assessee

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

holding that the fuel farm facility provided by the Assessee did not fall within the meaning of ‘airport’ and as such was not an “infrastructure facility” for the purposes of claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act. 5. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding ... also operating the aviation fuel facility at Bangalore International Airport. Since the assessee is engaged in the business of developing, operating and maintaining “infrastructure facility” as defined in Explanation to section 80-IA(4) of the Act, in the return, it claimed deduction under section 80-IA(1) read with

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2962/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Maharashtra State Co Op Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Developement Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed for statistical purposes while for the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2171/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailmaharashtra State Co- Vs. Dcit-(Osd)-1 Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-1(3)(2) Vs. M/S Maharashtra State R. No. 540, 5Th Floor Co-Op, Agricultural Rural Aayakar Bhavan, Multipurpose M.K. Road, Development Bank Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chowpatty, Girgaum, Mumbai – 400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9669E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5318/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the opinion of the Revenue, the rail system was not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and hence, assessee is not entitled for deduction thereon. We find that ... much as it had entered into an agreement with the government through department of Railways for developing, maintaining and operating the rail system [infrastructure facility]; and that in pursuance thereof it had developed the integrated rail system in between the plant and the nearest railway track [of Indian Railways

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the opinion of the Revenue, the rail system was not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and hence, assessee is not entitled for deduction thereon. We find that ... much as it had entered into an agreement with the government through department of Railways for developing, maintaining and operating the rail system [infrastructure facility]; and that in pursuance thereof it had developed the integrated rail system in between the plant and the nearest railway track [of Indian Railways

M/S Yojaka (India) Pvt Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3360/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.3359 & 3360/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 80I

therefore we are claiming for deduction under section 80IA”. 5. The assessee had carried out river bank construction works and claimed the same as infrastructure facility covered by sec.80IA of the Act. The AO did not accept the contentions of the Assessee. He held that the "project related to inland ... held that there is no element of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining of any infrastructure facility in the work carried out by the assessee. The AO held that the assessee has only executed works contract and hence the assessee is not eligible

M/S Yojaka (India) Private Limited, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3359/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.3359 & 3360/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 80I

therefore we are claiming for deduction under section 80IA”. 5. The assessee had carried out river bank construction works and claimed the same as infrastructure facility covered by sec.80IA of the Act. The AO did not accept the contentions of the Assessee. He held that the "project related to inland ... held that there is no element of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining of any infrastructure facility in the work carried out by the assessee. The AO held that the assessee has only executed works contract and hence the assessee is not eligible

Accc 30, Mumbai vs. United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

ITA 3036/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

case shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of operation of ships and barges and business of developing, maintaining and operating infrastructure facility of a port. It filed its return of income on 31/10/2007 showing total income of ₹ 134,358,252/–. ITA Nos.3036 & 2986/Mum/2012 United Shippers

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250

there was no profit motive. According to the AO though the ultimate goal of the Assessee is to develop infrastructure, the said infrastructure facility will be ultimately used for commercial purpose. According to the AO after completing the project passenger will necessarily have to purchase the ticket and commute ... Page 17 of 22 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

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru vs. M/S. Vijaya Bank, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1834/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, C.A &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234DSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)Section 37(1)(vii)

reserve created (and maintained) by a financial corporation which is engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in India or by a public company formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing longterm

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 7155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

with the confirmation of disallowance of deduction by the ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee is not engaged in the business of infrastructure facilities and the assessee in fact a contractor, the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 3.1 At the outset, we find that this issue ... statutory bodies. A close reading of the agreement (for instance agreement with MSRDC enclosed in the paper book) clearly shows that appellant developed the infrastructure facility and has not acted merely as contractor as sought to be made out by Assessing Officer and C1T (Appeals). The Oxford dictionary defines

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 5460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

with the confirmation of disallowance of deduction by the ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee is not engaged in the business of infrastructure facilities and the assessee in fact a contractor, the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 3.1 At the outset, we find that this issue ... statutory bodies. A close reading of the agreement (for instance agreement with MSRDC enclosed in the paper book) clearly shows that appellant developed the infrastructure facility and has not acted merely as contractor as sought to be made out by Assessing Officer and C1T (Appeals). The Oxford dictionary defines

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 528/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

with the confirmation of disallowance of deduction by the ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee is not engaged in the business of infrastructure facilities and the assessee in fact a contractor, the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. 3.1 At the outset, we find that this issue ... statutory bodies. A close reading of the agreement (for instance agreement with MSRDC enclosed in the paper book) clearly shows that appellant developed the infrastructure facility and has not acted merely as contractor as sought to be made out by Assessing Officer and C1T (Appeals). The Oxford dictionary defines

Concern India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

Taxes which stated that "under the BOT arrangement an assessee would only be allowed amortization in respect of expenditure incurred in creation of the infrastructure facility over the period of BOT arrangement and no depreciation would be allowed on such infrastructure under provisions of the Act". The case