Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9.1 Several Tribunals and Courts have elaborately discussed in their decisions the provisions of section 80IA (4) and laid down broad criteria for eligibility to a developer to claim deduction u/s 80IA (4) of the Act.

9.2 The terms and conditions of the agreements of works have been individually examined in the light of broad criteria laid down by several Tribunals and Courts for eligibility of a developer to claim deduction u/s 80IA (4) of the Act. The total turnover of the assessee, during the year under consideration, was earned, as listed and reproduced in the later part of the order, both from development of infrastructure facilities in the form of development of roads, construction or widening of dams, canals, water supply projects .industrial park, Solid Waste Management Treatment Plant etc. and from repairing and re-habilitation of the roads. On the basis of this examination, it was found that though the appellant executed civil work but in some cases there was no development of any infrastructure facility i.e. developed area from an undeveloped area. Therefore, it was wrong, in my opinion, on the part of the AO to hold that the assessee had merely acted as a contractor. By analyzing the nature ofjmckpf each contract executed by the assessee, it can be gathered that the assessee had acted as a developer for some of the projects and for some other projects which did not result into an infrastructure facility, he acted merely as a contractor.

The contract at Sr.No.2 was an agreement between the appellant and Water Resources Deptt, Govt. of Goa for construction of RCC Conduit from Ch. 28.970 km. to 37,425 km. of Left Bank Main Canal of Tillari Irrigation Project in Bardez Taluka - Goa State.lt was a work for construction of RCC Conduit on turnkey basis within stipulated period of 450 days along with defects liability period of 3 years. The cost of Project was of Rs.51,43,72,473/-.

The terms and conditions of the tender were examined and it was observed that the assessee developed infrastructure facility for public purpose. The infrastructure developed was handed over to Goa Tillari Irrigation Development Corporation of Govt. of India. The terms and conditions of the contract were similar to those as mentioned in the contracts entered between a developer and the government or its agencies for developing any infrastructure facility for public utility. After having regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement for development of the infrastructure facility, the rulings of the courts and position of law on the issue, in my opinion, the assessee acted as a developer because he developed infrastructure facility and handed over the same to the authority concerned with guarantee period for maintenance thereof. Therefore, the I.T.A Nos. 219, 199, 220 & 200/Rjt/2015 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 13 M/s. Ketan Construction Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT assessee was eligible for claim of deduction u/s.80IA (4) (i) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is allowed.

After having regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement for development of infrastructure facility, the rulings of the courts and position of law on the issue, in my opinion, the assessee acted as a developer because he developed infrastructure facility from an un-developed area and handed over the same to the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department. Therefore, he was eligible for claim of deduction u/s.80IA (4) (i) of the Act and the same is allowed.

After having regard to the terms and conditions of the agreement for development of infrastructure facility, the rulings of the courts and position of law on the issue, in my opinion, the assessee acted as a developer because he developed infrastructure facility from an un-developed area and handed over the same to Narmada Water Resources and Kalpsar Department.Therefore, he was eligible for claim of deduction u/s.80!A (4) (i) of the Act and the same is allowed.