Thank you so much sir. Is there any time limit for claim of Refund? As you said 2 years. ITO is not passing Refund order!!! Can I go for Writ petition for my claim of refund?
Regards,
C A Shah D J
USA
From: vikramratnoo <vikramratnoo@gmail.com>
To: "It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com" <It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com" <It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com>; aaykarbhavan <aaykarbhavan@yahoogroups.com>; AAYKARBHAVANGOOGLE <aaykarbhavan@googlegroups.com>; "sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in" <sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in>
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [IT Reporter] IT : Repair of river bank/canal wall is not entitled to section 80-IA deduction - Deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed in respect of works contract granted to assessee for refurbishment/repair of protection wall of canals
Vikram Ratnoo
Regards,
C A Shah D J
USA
From: vikramratnoo <vikramratnoo@gmail.com>
To: "It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com" <It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com" <It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com>; aaykarbhavan <aaykarbhavan@yahoogroups.com>; AAYKARBHAVANGOOGLE <aaykarbhavan@googlegroups.com>; "sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in" <sensitiveadvisor2008@yahoogroups.co.in>
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [IT Reporter] IT : Repair of river bank/canal wall is not entitled to section 80-IA deduction - Deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed in respect of works contract granted to assessee for refurbishment/repair of protection wall of canals
Section 119 may help u in claiming refund for the unclaimed TDS.
Secondly, if the income for which the TDS was made has been offered for tax in the return then within two years u can claim the refund.
Vikram Ratnoo
ITO Ward 1(3),Surat
09099031474
09408790777(Tarang)
When an assessment is completed , TDS claimed proportionately to Income shown in Return, No refund issued to assessee so far. What is alternative for getting the Refund.Amount is Rs 3,25,000.C A Shah D JUSA
From: alakh dave <vedmata@yahoo.com>
To: It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: [IT Reporter] IT : Repair of river bank/canal wall is not entitled to section 80-IA deduction - Deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed in respect of works contract granted to assessee for refurbishment/repair of protection wall of canals
From: Rajkumar Makwana <r.r.makwana@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IT Reporter] IT : Repair of river bank/canal wall is not entitled to section 80-IA deduction - Deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed in respect of works contract granted to assessee for refurbishment/repair of protection wall of canals
To: It_law_reported@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, October 6, 2012, 7:21 PM
Dear Kesarwaniji,Hello,First of all how are you?When the case was moved for the manual selection, the roi / PAN is with under his jurisdiction.Considering the concurrent jurisdiction the notice issued by that AO is valid.This is my point of view.One may differ.regards.r r makwana
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:54 PM, R K <cotraveller@gmail.com> wrote:
please give your valuable opinion=====A NOTICE IS ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF I.T. ACT BY AN OFFICER WHO IS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION AT ALL OVER THE PARTICULAR ASSESEE THE CASE IS SELECTED MANUALLY FOR SCRUTINY ON OBJECTION HE TRANSFERS THE CASE TO THE ITO WHO HAS JURISDICTION AFTER THE DUE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. PLEASE TELL WHETHER THE NOTICE IS VALID IF YES UNDER WHAT SECTION IF NOT UNDER WHAT SECTION OF I T ACT ?
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM, pavan singla <singlapavan@gmail.com> wrote:
IT : Repair of river bank/canal wall is not entitled to section 80-IA deduction - Deduction under section 80-IA cannot be allowed in respect of works contract granted to assessee for refurbishment/repair of protection wall of canals and river bank■■■[2012] 25 taxmann.com 260 (Bangalore - Trib.)IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH 'B'Yojaka Marine (P.) Ltd.v.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Mangalore*N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND JASON P. BAOZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERIT APPEAL NOS. 30 & 31 (BANG.) OF 2010[ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07]JULY 25, 2012Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from infrastructure undertakings - Assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 - Assessee-company was a marine works contractor - During relevant period, assessee had executed following works; (i) Refurbishment/repair, i.e., rip-rap masonary on permanent banks of Champakara and Udyog Mandal Canals in Kerala in pursuance of a works contract with developer, viz., IWAI under Ministry of Shipping & Transport; and (ii) Protection work for Tapi river bank under authority of Surat Municipal Corporation - Whether work executed by assessee could, at best, be described as work which was a sub-activity in category of repairs and maintenance thereof rather than development of an infrastructure facility - Held, yes - Whether assessee was a mere contractor executing civil works contracts for an infrastructure undertakings/enterprise and was not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA - Held, yes [In favour of revenue]FACTS
• The assessee-company was a marine works contractor and supplier of machinery and equipment on hire. It claimed deduction under section 80-IA on the ground that it had undertaken the construction operation and maintenance of an infrastructure facility in pursuance of an agreement with 'IWAI' which consisted of bank protection work in the Champakara and Udyog Mandal Canals in Kerala and protection of Tapi river bank under the authority of Surat Municipal Corporation, Gujarat.• The Assessing Officer, after examining the agreements for the works undertaken by the assessee, concluded that the agreements represented only a works contract granted to the assessee for refurbishment of a portion of the protection wall of the canals and the river bank respectively and the work orders issued by IWAI and Surat Municipal Corporation carried out by the assessee did not have any element of developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructural facility as claimed by the assessee and, therefore, disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IA.• On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.• On second appeal :HELD
The description of the work executed by the assessee in the relevant period is certainly not development of infrastructure as the Champakara and Udyog Mandal Canals in Kerala were constructed/developed decades ago. What work the assessee executed in respect of these two canals and the Tapi river bank, viz., rip-rap masonary for protection of the canal bank and river bank is, at best, work which is a sub-activity in the category of repairs and maintenance thereof rather than development of an infrastructure facility, namely, inland waterways which has been done by IWAI. The assessee executed works contracts for and on behalf of the concerned Government bodies and there is certainly no element of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining of any infrastructure facility as envisaged in clause (c) to the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80-IA. [Para 5.1]The Explanation to section 80-IA inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, is retrospective in effect from 1-4-2000; it is clarificatory in nature and clearly spells out the legislative intent that the benefit of deduction under section 80-IA was not to be granted or extended to work contractors as in the instant case of the assessee. [Para 5.2]Therefore, the assessee is only a contractor executing civil works contracts for an infrastructure undertaking/enterprise and is, therefore, not eligible to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA. [Para 5.5]CASE REVIEW
CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.) (para 5.3.1) and ACIT v. JSR Construction (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 898 (Bang.) of 2009, dated 29-3-2011] (para 5.3.2) distinguished.B.T. Patil & Sons, Belgaum Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 171 (Bom.) (LB) and Asstt. CIT v. Indwel Lianings (P.) Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 137 (Chennai) (para 5.5) followed.CASES REFERRED TO
CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 323/189 Taxman 54 (Bom.) (para 4.2), ACIT v. JSR Construction (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 898 (Bang.) of 2009, dated 29-3-2011] (para 4.2), B.T. Patil & Sons, Belgaum Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 35 SOT 171 (Bom.) (LB) (para 4.3) and Asstt. CIT v. Indwel Lianings (P.) Ltd. [2009] 122 TTJ 137 (Chennai) (para 4.3).Smt. Sheetal Borkar for the Appellant. Smt. Susan Thomas Jose for the Respondent.ORDER
Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member - These two appeals are directed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangalore dt. 10.11.2009 for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07. As common issues are involved, these appeals are being disposed off by way of a common order.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under :2.1 The assessee company is a marine works contractor and supplier of machinery and equipment on hire. In both the Assessment Years under consideration, the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that it had undertaken the construction operation and maintenance of an infrastructure facility in pursuance of an agreement with the Inland Waterways Authority of India (INAI) which consisted of bank protection work in the Champakara and Udyogamandal Canals in Kerala and protection of Tapi river bank under the authority of Surat Municipal Corporation, Gujarat. The Assessing Officer after examining the agreements for these works, undertaken by the assessee came to the conclusion that the agreement represented only a works contract granted to the assessee for refurbishment of a portion of the protection wall of the canals and the river bank respectively and that the work orders issued by IWAI and Surat Municipal Corporation carried out by the assessee did not have any element of developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructural facility as claimed by the assessee and therefore disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the orders of assessment.2.2 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after considering the arguments put forward by the assessee, the details of the contract works on record, the judicial decisions cited and relied on by the assessee, etc and after detailed discussion thereon held that the assessee company is a mere contractor executing civil works for an infrastructure Enterprise, viz. IWAI and Surat Municipal Corporation and is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act as it is hit by the Explanation thereto.3. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. In similar grounds of appeal for both the Assessment Years, the assessee has submitted as under :"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had satisfied the requirements of section 80IA prescribed under the statute as applicable to the years under challenge and therefore ought to have allowed the deduction as claimed for.2. The Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant was operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility and therefore the disallowance as made by the assessing authority ought not to have been upheld by him.3. The Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that there being no works contract involved the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA by the Assessing Officer was not justified.4. Without prejudice, the Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the decision of the Special Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT of Mumbai in the case of M/s. B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (ITA Nos. 1408 & 1409/PN/2003 dt. 26.10.2009) was distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.5. Without prejudice, the Commissioner (A) ought to have appreciated that the Explanation to section 80IA was inserted only in 2007 though was made effective retrospectively from 1.4.2000 which the appellant could not have foreseen and ought to have allowed the deduction as claimed for.6. The Commissioner (A) erred in confirming the interest levied under section 234B & 234D of the Act.7. For those and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed."4.1 The grounds of appeal at S. Nos. 1 to 5, all pertain to the assessee's claim for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee in the relevant periods had claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act on the ground that it had undertaken the construction and maintenance of the following infrastructural facilities :(i) refurbishment and maintenance of the permanent banks of the Chanapakara and Udyogamandal Canals in National Wa
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment