← 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

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 727/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 726/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 725/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 724/BANG/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 723/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 486/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 485/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 484/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 483/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 482/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

sought deductions for income earned from new berth No.15 set as per the existing port. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for the new infrastructure facility would fall within the definition of infrastructure facility, were not accepted and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80IA ... appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the construction and operation of the new infrastructural facility being Berth No.15 at New Mangaluru port. presently known as Bulk Coal Terminal, which has been disallowed by the AO. Before the AO. the appellant submitted that income earned

ACIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1108/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

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 CIT (Appeals). The Oxford dictionary defines ... little below would show that the construction rail over bridge projection (ROB) 23 awarded by MSRDC to the appellant is nothing but development of infrastructure facility, which was to be legally handed over to the Railways and MSRDC after the payment was received. Various clauses of the agreement would show

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 1104/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

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 CIT (Appeals). The Oxford dictionary defines ... little below would show that the construction rail over bridge projection (ROB) 23 awarded by MSRDC to the appellant is nothing but development of infrastructure facility, which was to be legally handed over to the Railways and MSRDC after the payment was received. Various clauses of the agreement would show

DCIT, Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2948/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 32(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

submitted that the bank is granting the long term advances towards eligible business i.e. industrial Development or Agricultural Development or Development of infrastructure facility in India or Construction or purchases of houses in India for residential purposes and Page 19 of 23 ITA No. 2948/DEL/2024 ... since these incomes are also derived in the course of carrying on business. Financial corporation engaged in providing long- term finance for development of infrastructure facility in India has also Page 20 of 23 ITA No. 2948/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. Punjab National Bank become eligible assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1350/HYD/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or a hotel or operation of a ship or developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility or scientific and industrial research and development or providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1340/HYD/2024[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2002-2003
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or a hotel or operation of a ship or developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility or scientific and industrial research and development or providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1339/HYD/2024[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or a hotel or operation of a ship or developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility or scientific and industrial research and development or providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1338/HYD/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2000-2001
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or a hotel or operation of a ship or developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility or scientific and industrial research and development or providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabab

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1337/HYD/2024[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1999-2000
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or a hotel or operation of a ship or developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility or scientific and industrial research and development or providing telecommunication services whether basic or cellular including radio paging, domestic satellite service or network of trunking

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 242/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

came into existence from 1976. Their main purpose is to promote and secure the development of Bangalore Metropolitan area in addition to providing infrastructure facility as a general public utility. The assessee also developed various layouts and sold the said plots to the public as well as to the economically