VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

b) of clause (i) of section 80IA(4) and the transferee Enterprise were allowed to claim the deduction for unexpired period during which the transferor Enterprise would have been entitled to claim the deduction. Therefore, the infrastructure facility has to be developed on BOT, BOOT or BOLT or similar arrangement where the investee Enterprise bears the financial and investment risks

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

THE ACIT,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)-I,RANGE-4,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

b) in Katira): The Katira decision highlights that developers often redevelop or upgrade existing facilities. Similarly, in Montecarlo Ltd., the Co-ordinate Bench allowed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for rehabilitation work that transformed infrastructure. The MPSH project’s scope of work entailed rehabilitating an existing highway, thereby transforming it into a new infrastructure facility—consistent with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 19611 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.733(E), dated the 31 July, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II., Section 3. Sub-section (u), dated the 31 July, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 19611 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.733(E), dated the 31 July, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II., Section 3. Sub-section (u), dated the 31 July, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 19611 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.733(E), dated the 31 July, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II., Section 3. Sub-section (u), dated the 31 July, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 19611 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.733(E), dated the 31 July, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II., Section 3. Sub-section (u), dated the 31 July, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHEMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1138 To 1146/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2021-22) बनाम/ Prakash Misrimal Deputy Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax Vs. 17, Rajmugat Soc. Central Circle-1(1), Naranpura Char Rasta, Ahmedabad Naranpura, Ahmedabad 380013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeps7266A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

120 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 19611 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes number S.O.733(E), dated the 31 July, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II., Section 3. Sub-section (u), dated the 31 July, 2001, except as respects things done or omitted