Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In relation to DMRC Railway Projects it had been required of the appellant to incur the necessary expenses towards the development out of its own fund at the first instance and only after completing substantial portion of the project, the appellant could raise progressive bills on DMRC. From these facts it would be clear that the entire risk for this project towards development of Infrastructure facility, had to be borne by the appellant on its own. It was only after the progress of the devel- opment to a particular extent, the appellant could raise bills on DMRC. The rele- vant details of incurring expenses and raising of the Bills had earlier been pro- duced before the Assessing Officer, but those were not considered by the As- sessing Officer while examining the eligibility of the appellant to deduction u/s 80-IA. The details of incurring of expenditure and raising of bills in relation to DMRC project of Infrastructure development (Metro Railway) are enclosed in the Paper Book for ready reference.

As regards the Infrastructure Development Projects relating to Park Street Flyover and Gariahat Flyover, the authorities of HRBC issued certificate certifying that design/development of detailed working drawings of the Flyovers had been en- trusted to the appellant and the appellant duly carried out the same. The appel- lant submits that the above-mentioned Certificate clearly indicated that the appel- lant had not been appointed just for execution of any Works Contract towards the development of the Infrastructure facilities but it had been entrusted with the en- tire work of the development of the Infrastructure facilities towards Flyovers at Park Street and Gariahat. A copy of the above- mentioned Certificate has been included in the Paper Book (pages 275 to 277).

9.2 The assessee may be correct in stating that "Local Authority" defined under section 10(20) is for the exclusive purpose of section 10(20). Though the argument may appear correct, however if a term is not defined elsewhere, its definition as appearing at any other place in the statute can be relied upon. Section 10(20) defines a local authority, but it does not imply that a local authority as per the definition, which enjoys exempt income, will be defined differently if the term occurs at any other the place. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken the definition as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there does not appear any material difference between the definition as per section 10(20) and as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has been referred to by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, neither the DMRC nor the HRBC are Local Authorities. Although Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners is a statutory organisation under the Government of West Bengal, however as is evident from the document Senbo Engineering Limited AY: 2007-08 dated 20.04.2005 of the Vice Chairman, the flyover had been constructed under Calcutta Transport Infrastructure Development Project with the loan assistance from Japan bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and was not financed by the assessee as is incorrectly being claimed. In fact, a perusal of the payment received shows that the assessee was periodically raising bills on part completion of the work and the payment was also being received throughout the year. Therefore, mere furnishing of performance guarantee, which is only a part of the total project cost and is also required from a contractor so as to ensure that the work is completed in time, does not justify the claim of the assessee that it had taken substantial financial risks. In fact, in the decision of Montecarlo Construction Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the assessee, the entire payment was claimed to be made by the appellant and the decision is distinguishable on facts as the issues noted in the case of the assessee are peculiar to the case of the assessee. The relevant extract from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard of non-fulfilling of the conditions required is as under:

9. LEGISLATIVE INTENTION: Memorandum of Finance Act, 2007, read, "Clarification regarding developer with reference to infrastructure facil- ity, industrial park, etc. for the purposes of section 80-IA Section 80-IA, inter-alia, provides for a ten-year tax benefit to an enterprise or an undertaking engaged in development of infrastructure facilities, Industrial Parks and Special Economic Zones.

The tax benefit was introduced for the reason that industrial modernization re- quires a massive expansion of, and qualitative improvement in, infrastructure (viz., expressways, highways, airports, ports and rapid urban rail transport sys- tems) which was lacking in our country. The purpose of the tax benefit has all along been for encouraging private sector participation by way of investment in development of the infrastructure sector and not for the persons who merely exe- cute the civil construction work or any other works contract. Accordingly, it is proposed to clarify that the provisions of section 80-IA shall not apply to a person who executes a works contract entered into with the undertak- ing or enterprise referred to in the said section. Thus, in a case where a person makes the investment and himself executes the development work i.e., carries out the civil construction work, he will be eligible for tax benefit under section 80-IA. In contrast to this, a person who enters into a contract with another person [i.e., Senbo Engineering Limited AY: 2007-08 undertaking or enterprise referred to in section 80-IA) for executing works contract, will not be eligible for the tax benefit under section 80-IA.