sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.

No tax relief - ITAT
November, 06th 2009

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that contractors, while calculating their income-tax liability, cannot claim deduction on profits from an infrastructure project.

Section 80-IA (4) of the Income-tax Act allows deduction in respect of profits from infrastructure projects for developers but not contractors, who execute only part of the project.

There should be complete development of the facility and not just a part of it, to claim such deduction, held the ITAT in a judgement on October 26. Only the persons directly engaged in developing, maintaining and operating the facility can be given the benefit, added the order.

The ITAT was hearing an appeal filed by a civil contractor who claimed deduction under section 80-IA (4) on profits from infrastructure projects executed by it.

The lower authorities had rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee was a mere contractor and not a developer. The ITAT held that on merit, the provision applies to a developer.

The difference between a developer and contractor is that the former designs and conceives new projects, while the latter executes them.

As the assessee was merely executing the job of civil construction, it was not eligible for the deduction. The assessee was also not the owner of the facility, the appellate body held.

The section under which the assessee sought deduction provides that it shall not apply to a person executing a work contract, the I-T appellate authority observed.

Also, the provision is unambiguous and cannot be interpreted otherwise, the I-T appellate authority observed.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SEO Services SEO LLC e-boost Search Engine Optimization Services Internet Marketing Services Website Placement Services On-site Webs

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions