“infrastructure facility”

DeductionsSection 80IA(4)Section 80IA(4)531 judgments

The decision most relied on for infrastructure facility is CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. (322 ITR 323), cited in 229 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on infrastructure facility

CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd.

322 ITR 323 · 2010 · High Court

229

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot deny a Section 80IA deduction by merely asserting that the assessee is not a "developer" without considering the relevant agreements and facts. Entitlement to Section 80IA deduction requires a thorough examination of the assessee's role as a developer.

M/s. GVPR Engineers Ltd. v. ACIT

51 SOT 207 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

Deduction under section 80-IA is available to developers who undertake entrepreneurial investment risk, not merely to contractors who undertake business risk. The nature of the work undertaken determines eligibility.

T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka

8 SCC 481 · 2002 · Reported

citing judgments

Educational institutions are not commercial activities, and collecting fees for betterment and growth does not automatically disqualify them from being considered educational. Fees collected for value-added courses, training, or hostel facilities can be eligible for exemption under Section 11 if applied towards the institution's infrastructure.

Katira Construction Ltd. v. UOI

31 Taxmann.com 250 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

A person entering into a works contract with an enterprise eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA is not entitled to claim the tax benefit under Section 80-IA of the Act.

Katira Constructions Limited v. Union of India and Others

352 ITR 513 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court holds that the explanation to Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, regarding works contracts for infrastructure facilities, is clarificatory and explanatory in nature, not an amendment with retrospective effect. Its vires are upheld as it does not levy tax retrospectively.

CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

324 ITR 199 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

A taxpayer is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA for developing and operating infrastructure facilities, with the decision clarifying the distinction between a contractor and a developer for this purpose.

Asstt. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd.

141 ITD 151 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

Where an assessee invests its own funds in an infrastructure development project, it is presumed to be acting as a developer, not merely a contractor, making it eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).

B.T. Patil& Sons Belgaum Construction P. Ltd. v. ACIT

126 TTJ 577 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

A Special Bench decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning Section 80IA deduction for infrastructure facility developers can be recalled if it fails to consider a binding jurisdictional High Court judgment.

Judgments citing infrastructure facility

M/S. Tega Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1875/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92CSection 92C(3)

perusal of the above subsection shows that the intention and the purpose of the legislature for introducing section 80-IA(4) is to develop infrastructure facility in the country. The assessee emphatically relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income ... also imperative to consider purposive interpretation of the provisions. The provisions were incorporated for development of infrastructure facility in the country and were introduced with effect from 01.04.1991 when the Indian economy had been opened up on account of liberalisation and it was considered imperative to grant tax concessions

International Seaport (Haldia) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.328/Kol/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) International Seaport (Haldia) Vs Acit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata Private Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaci 9468 D (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 06.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That Two Issues Are Involved In The Assessee’S Appeal, One Is The Denial Of The Deduction U/S.80Ia Of The Act In Respect Of Miscellaneous Income To An Extra Rs.4,99,372/- & The Second Issue Was Disallowance Of The Disallowance Of The Amortization Of The Leasehold Rent Allegedly By The Ao Claiming The Same To Be Claim Of Depreciation To An Extent Of Rs.42,32,776/-. It Was Submission That In Respect Of The One Number Imported Slewing Ring Roller Bearing From The Original Manufacturer Of The Same I.E. Rothe Erde, Germany, Which Was An Important & Expensive Spare Required For The Operation Of The Stacking &

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

Supreme Court in Madras Industrial Investment Corp 225 ITR 802 (SC), that the entire cost of construction and development of the infrastructure facility has to be amortized evenly over the period of the concessionaire agreement and allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Relevant extract of CBDT ... appellant was on Build-Operate-Transfer ('BOT') basis. iv) In lieu of consideration of the expenditure incurred on construction, operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility covered by the period of the agreement, the appellant is accorded a right to collect 'user charges' from users of such facility

Rupa Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4750/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4750/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80I

earned by purchase and resale which amounts to trading, whereas section 80IA is applicable to profits from business of development, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. Hence, the facts of the case laws relied upon by the appellant are different from the facts in the present appeal. Hence

DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

amenities, viz., providing plant and equipment for providing education from kindergarten to high school, hostel building facility, building of manpower, maintenance of schools/campuses, infrastructural facilities, search for excellent faculty Private Limited vs. DCIT across the globe, training the existing faculty of renowned persons/eminent persons etc., being of the nature ... assessment order – “..the assessee-company is engaged in the activity of acquiring of land and building, furniture, transport vehicles and to provide infrastructural facilities to the schools and educational institutions and revenue is generated from the rental income on premises and operation of pre- primary schools…” AO observation that this

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 206/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 205/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodand

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

amenities, viz., providing plant and equipment for providing education from kindergarten to high school, hostel building facility, building of manpower, maintenance of schools/campuses, infrastructural facilities, search for excellent faculty ITA No.314 & 206/Viz/2025 ITA No. 205/Viz/2024 Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited vs. DcIT*= across the globe, training the existing faculty ... assessment order — “the assessee-company is engaged in the activity of acquiring of land and building, furniture, transport vehicles and to provide infrastructural facilities to the schools and educational institutions and revenue is generated from the rental income on premises and operation of pre- primary schools...” AO observation that this

Dodla Dairy Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 466/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Aashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 80Section 801BSection 80J

entity. (3) In the case of an enterprise carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility, the form shall be accompanied by a copy of the agreement of the enterprise with the Central Government or the State Government ... local authority for carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility. (4) In any other case, the form shall be accompanied by a copy of the agreement, approval or permission, as the case may be, to carry on the activity

Shree Narayan Built Up India Private Limited, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2) Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

return of income claiming deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of profits derived from the development and maintenance of infrastructure facility. The claim of the assessee company was denied on the ground that the assessee is not a developer but merely a work contractor. On perusal

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

provide tax exemption only to such 'Infrastructure capital funds' or 'infrastructure capital companies' which are established for the purpose of mobilizing resources for financing infrastructure facilities. The assessee was neither established for the purpose of mobilizing resources for financing infrastructure facilities nor can it be turned-as 'Infrastructure Capital Company ... funds have become an important source of capital to finance infrastructure projects. In order to encourage such funds established to mobilise resources for financing infrastructure facilities. I propose to exempt them from income- tax. Any dividend, interest or long -term capital gains of such funds or companies from investments

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

asked to furnish explanation in this regard, in response to the query raised assessee has not Filed any submission. The assessee company is developing infrastructure facility of toll roads under the BOT (Built-Operate-Transfer) basis. The ownership of the toll roads lies with National Highway Authority of India (NHAI

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

business with respect to assessee being a Banking Company is the business of providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development, development of infrastructure facility in India or development of housing in India. On perusal of the findings of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for earlier

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Known As Oriental Bank of Commerce), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3161/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. Punjab National Bank (Earlier Circle-19(1), Know As Oriental Bank Of Delhi Commerce), Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, Delhi Pan: Aaaco0191M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishana, Ca Department By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(2)(v)

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

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

authority or any other statutory body for carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility and (ii) evidence of having filed Form 10CCB and copy of the agreement of the enterprise with the Central Government or a State Government ... authority or any other statutory body for carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. 6. He, therefore, was of the opinion that from the documents which are available on record, it is not clear as to whether

Jayanti S Kundhadiya, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune vs. Patil Construction and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 80

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, Lko, Lucknow vs. Acp Tollways Private Limited, Lucknow

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

ITA 131/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 32

appellant got right to collect toll for the specified period only after incurring expenditure through its own sources on development, construction and maintenance of infrastructural facilities. 6.4 The assessing officer has denied the claim of the depreciation to the appellant by applying the circular no. 9 of 2014. para ... right to collect toll for the specified period only after incurring expenditure through its own sources on development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure facility. Section 32(1)(ii) of the acts talks about the intangible assets, Right to collect toll is an asset in the nature of licence. Section

M/S. Bekaert Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1003/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

appeal has been recalled vide M.A.No.202/PUN/2022 order 19.10.2023 for the limited purpose of examining the consideration paid for use of the IT Infrastructure facility under the correct applicable provisions of the DTAA between India and Page 2 2 ITA No.1003/PUN/2017 M/s. Bekaert Industries Private Limited Belgium. Subsequently, appeal ... Members read as follows : “Questions framed by the Hon'ble Judicial Member: 1. Whether, it is justified on law and facts to hold the "infrastructure facility falls within the specified definition of "plant", ignoring, the absence of term "scientific equipment" in comprehensive treaty, which is applicable to the present issue

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S Kmc Constructions Ltd, Hyderabad

ITA 731/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Central government or State Government or local authority or any authority for developing, operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. The appellant claims that it has satisfied clause (a) of Section 801A(4) of the Act, because as a constituent partner of JV /Consortia ... 80IA(4) of the Act and as per the proviso, the deduction is allowed to a successor entity in case one enterprise developed such infrastructure facility and after development, transfer such infrastructure facility to another Enterprise for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf