← 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

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 241/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

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 240/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

Hyderabad Infratech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1856/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana &For Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

section 80IA of the Act, the CBDT has clarified that, the entity engaged in development, development and operation or maintenance and operation of infrastructure facility are eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. It was also submitted by Ld. AR that, since the ITA-TP No.1856/Hyd/2019 14 provision of section ... also providing various infrastructure and maintenance services to its tenants. Hence the activity of the assessee is covered under “maintenance and operation of infrastructure facility” and accordingly, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80IAB of the Act. However, the Ld. AO denied the deduction u/s.80IAB

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industires Ltd, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 6758/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am

Section 36(1)(va)

order passed for A.Y. 2003-04, the AO had rejected such claim on the finding that the Rail System is neither independent undertaking nor infrastructure facility to become eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. He noted, in A.Y. 2003-04, the AO had further observed that the Rail System

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. M/S Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Erode

ITA 847/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2025 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

before the whole work is completed and also it is to be noted that the assessee has not earned any income from operating an infrastructure facility. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is a mere ... brief facts of the case are that the Assessee RPP Infra Projects Limited is a company engaged in the business of developing infrastructure facilities as per contracts awarded by Central and State Governments and Local Authorities. The assessee filed its return of income by claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.4

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S. Rp Infra Projects Limited, Erode

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 335/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

before the whole work is completed and also it is to be noted that the assessee has not earned any income from operating an infrastructure facility. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is a mere ... brief facts of the case are that the Assessee RPP Infra Projects Limited is a company engaged in the business of developing infrastructure facilities as per contracts awarded by Central and State Governments and Local Authorities. The assessee filed its return of income by claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.4

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Erode

ITA 334/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

For Respondent: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

before the whole work is completed and also it is to be noted that the assessee has not earned any income from operating an infrastructure facility. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is a mere ... brief facts of the case are that the Assessee RPP Infra Projects Limited is a company engaged in the business of developing infrastructure facilities as per contracts awarded by Central and State Governments and Local Authorities. The assessee filed its return of income by claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.4

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. M/S Rpp Infra Projects Limited, Erode

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 250(1)Section 80Section 80I

before the whole work is completed and also it is to be noted that the assessee has not earned any income from operating an infrastructure facility. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is a mere ... brief facts of the case are that the Assessee RPP Infra Projects Limited is a company engaged in the business of developing infrastructure facilities as per contracts awarded by Central and State Governments and Local Authorities. The assessee filed its return of income by claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) of Rs.4

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. M.B. Patil Construction Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2078/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

under section 801A of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard, it was submitted by Ld. AR that the assessee is a developer of infrastructure facility & has claimed deduction of Rs.2,73,36,424/- u/s 80IA of the IT Act. It was submitted by Ld. AR that ... claimed by the assessee was denied on various grounds, i.e. the assessee is a works contractor & not engaged in development & maintenance of infrastructure facility, that the assessee has not furnished its return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act hence in the light of section 80AC

M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2058/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kalrav MehrotraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

under section 801A of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard, it was submitted by Ld. AR that the assessee is a developer of infrastructure facility & has claimed deduction of Rs.2,73,36,424/- u/s 80IA of the IT Act. It was submitted by Ld. AR that ... claimed by the assessee was denied on various grounds, i.e. the assessee is a works contractor & not engaged in development & maintenance of infrastructure facility, that the assessee has not furnished its return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act hence in the light of section 80AC

M/S. Draipl-Mskel(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 249/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

according to which the deduction is available to an enterprise carrying on the business of developing or operating or operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. In his view the I.T.A No. 2449/Ahd/10 & ITA No. 249/Ahd/2012 A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page No 3 M/s. Draipal _Mskel (JV). vs.Addl ... assessee claimed that 80IA deduction is available to an assessee being an undertaking engaged in the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facilities, that this deduction is available way back from A.Y. 1996-97, whereas the Explanation has been recently brought in the statute, because of which

M/S. Draipal-Mskel (Jv), Ahmedabad vs. The Addl.CIT., Range-9, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 2449/AHD/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

according to which the deduction is available to an enterprise carrying on the business of developing or operating or operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. In his view the I.T.A No. 2449/Ahd/10 & ITA No. 249/Ahd/2012 A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 Page No 3 M/s. Draipal _Mskel (JV). vs.Addl ... assessee claimed that 80IA deduction is available to an assessee being an undertaking engaged in the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facilities, that this deduction is available way back from A.Y. 1996-97, whereas the Explanation has been recently brought in the statute, because of which

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 359/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

related to JV, whereas Section 801A(4) applies to any enterprise carrying a business of developing or operating or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility. 4. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 19 ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022, ITA.No.1415/Hyd./2019 And ITA.No.389/Hyd ... development of infrastructure projects. Further, the scope of the contract should be for either development or operation or maintenance or both in respect of infrastructure facility. Further, the contractor should be liable for any defects arising in all projects for a specific period and further, the developer has to bear

Srk Constructions and Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Srk Construction Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.389/Hyd

ITA 1415/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

related to JV, whereas Section 801A(4) applies to any enterprise carrying a business of developing or operating or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility. 4. Any other ground(s) that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 19 ITA.No.359/Hyd./2022, ITA.No.1415/Hyd./2019 And ITA.No.389/Hyd ... development of infrastructure projects. Further, the scope of the contract should be for either development or operation or maintenance or both in respect of infrastructure facility. Further, the contractor should be liable for any defects arising in all projects for a specific period and further, the developer has to bear

Madhu Reansport Company Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-II(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1233/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Shukla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR
Section 201Section 40

other words no claim u/s 80IA was made in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee qua the profit from the infrastructure facilities. The AO observed that the assessee has also not made its claim by filing a revised return of income and therefore, the same is not allowable ... received premium from its clients for providing Railway Wagons as per their requirement. Thus the said premium was directly related to the said infrastructure facility i.e. on account and due to confirm supply of railway wagons. (v) For purchasing the Railway Rakes, the appellant company had taken loan from Srei

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1109/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT-DR
Section 80I

assessee before the learned CIT(A) contended that it is engaged in the business of development, maintenance and operation of infrastructure facility namely airport. All the activity and revenue generated therefrom, whether classified aeronautical or non-aeronautical revenue are inextricably connected to the operation . ITA Nos. 1108 & 1109/Bang/2024 ... 25/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 26 and maintenance of impugned infrastructure facility of airport. The assessee further contended that the interest income from income tax refund, interest on securities deposit and government grant of Rs. 4,42,46,535/-, Rs. 60,78,788/- and Rs. 11,10,03,421/- respectively which

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

ITA 1108/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(4)Section 80I

assessee before the learned CIT(A) contended that it is engaged in the business of development, maintenance and operation of infrastructure facility namely airport. All the activity and revenue generated therefrom, whether classified aeronautical or non-aeronautical revenue are inextricably connected to the operation ITA Nos.1108 & 1109/Bang/2024 & C.O. No. 25/Bang/2024 ... Page 5 of 26 and maintenance of impugned infrastructure facility of airport. The assessee further contended that the interest income from income tax refund, interest on securities deposit and government grant of Rs.4,42,46,535/-, Rs.60,78,788/- and Rs. 11,10,03,421/- respectively which are included under

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 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 cross- country natural gas distribution network, including gas pipelines

Hari Kishan Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

providing long term finance for financial projects in new and renewable sources of energy and the same certainly falls in category of ‘development of infrastructure facility’ which is ‘eligible business’ u/s 36(1) Explanation (b). Revenue does not dispute that assessee is giving long ... assessee company is to work as a financial corporation engaged in providing long term finance for industrial or agricultural development or development of infrastructure facility in the form of financial projects in new and renewable sources of energy. Accordingly the corresponding grounds arising out appeals of the department deserve