ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD V. RAJKAMAL BUILDERS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1466/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the decision of the CIT(A) which allowed deductions under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for the Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The primary legal issue was whether the assessee, engaged in infrastructure development projects, qualifies as a 'developer' under Section 80IA(4) or merely as a 'contractor'. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the deductions, viewing the assessee as a contractor. However, the CIT(A) reversed this decision, supported by precedents and the Tribunal's earlier decisions in similar cases. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Gujarat High Court and its own previous rulings, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the assessee's role and responsibilities in the projects undertaken.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 29573 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: The PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd., Radhe Developers v. CIT, ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. v. CIT, Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITESH PARMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K. PATEL
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment
• Section: 13; 80IA

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदा बा द \u0012ा यपीठ “ए“, अहमदा बा द । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु\u0018ी सुिच\u001aा का \u001bले, \u0012ा ियक सद\u001d एवं \u0018ी मकरंद वसंत महा देवकर, लेखा सद\u001d क े सम\"। ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं /ITA Nos.1466/Ahd/2024 & 1467/Ahd/2024 िनधा \u0010रण वष\u0010 /Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively The ACIT Circle-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम/ v/s. Rajkamal Builders Infrastrucutre Pvt.Ltd. 54, Park Hill Nr.Heaven Park Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) – 380 015 \u0014थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AABCR 0326 A अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: /10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] both dated 17/06/2024, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 and AY 2018-19, wherein the CIT(A) allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”], in his orders under Section 143(3), dated ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 2 27/11/2019 (for AY 2017-18) and 21/04/2021 (for AY 2018-19), had disallowed the assessee’s claim. Since the facts and circumstances of both the assessment years are identical, involving the same nature of projects and disallowance by the AO, these appeals are being disposed of together by this common order for the sake of convenience. Facts of the case: 2. The assessee filed its return of income for both the assessment years under consideration. In the return(s), the assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, relating to profits from infrastructure development projects, including road construction and irrigation works. In both the assessment years the AO disallowed the claim of assessee u/s 80IA of the Act along with some other disallowances. The assessee preferred appeals before CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeals. The details of return filed, assessment thereof and the appeals there against are tabulated below for the sake of convenience and clarity: Particulars AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 Date of Order (AO) 27/11/2019 21/04/2021 Section under which AO's order was passed 143(3) 143(3) read with Section 144B Date of Filing ITR 01/11/2017 31/10/2018 Returned Income Rs.7,36,99,490/- Rs.13,45,84,200/- Deduction Claimed under Section 80IA Rs.5,03,55,641/- Rs.8,17,69,563/- Disallowance under Section 80IA (AO) Rs.5,03,55,641/- Including Set of losses claimed for Rs. 49,39,271/- Rs.8,17,69,563/- ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 3 Other Disallowances (AO) 1. PF Contribution: Rs.3,06,690/- Double Disallowance of PF: Rs.16,78,098/- 2. Interest on Refunds: Rs.7,08,170/- Assessed Income (AO) Rs.12,50,69,991/- Rs.21,80,31,863/- CIT(A) Decision on Section 80IA Allowed in favor of the assessee Allowed in favor of the assessee CIT(A) Decision on Other Disallowances Upheld PF Contribution Disallowance of Rs.3,06,690/- Directed AO to rectify double PF disallowance Final Decision of CIT(A) Partly Allowed Partly Allowed 3. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: In ITA No. 1466/Ahd/2024 – A.Y. 2017-18 a. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in justifying that the nature of business of the assessee is of \"Developer and allowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the IT Act? b. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80IAof the Act of Rs.4,54,16,370/- and not considering the findings of the AO? c. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the entire deduction as such without set-off of losses of Rs.49,39,271/- of loss-making infrastructure facilities? d. The appellant craves leave to add, alter and or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal. In ITA No. 1467/Ahd/2024 – A.Y. 2018-19 a. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in justifying that the nature of business of the assessee is of \"Developer\" and allowing claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the IT Act? ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 4 b. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80IAof the Act of Rs.8,17,69,563/- and not considering the findings of the AO? c. The appellant craves leave to add, alter and /or to amend all or any the ground before the final hearing of the appeal. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee stated that both the appeals are covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years. The AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of The PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad Vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 786 of 2023). The Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied on the order(s) of AO. 5. The primary issues raised in these appeals for both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 revolve around whether the assessee qualifies as a developer of infrastructure facilities under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Under Ground (a) for the both the years, the Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by concluding that the assessee is engaged in the business of a developer and thereby allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Under Ground (b) the Revenue further argues that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,54,16,370/- for AY 2017-18 and Rs.8,17,69,563/- for AY 2018-19, without adequately considering the AO’s findings. 5.1. The AO concluded that the assessee was operating as a works contractor rather than a developer. According to the AO, the projects executed by the assessee involved contracts awarded by government ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 5 authorities for the construction of roads, irrigation systems, and other infrastructure projects. These were considered civil construction contracts, and the AO believed that the assessee did not qualify for the Section 80IA of the Act deduction based on its role as a contractor. The AO heavily relied on the Explanation added to Section 80IA(13) of the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2000. This explanation clarified that entities engaged in works contracts awarded by the government or other authorities were not eligible for deductions under Section 80IA of the Act. The AO interpreted this provision to mean that the assessee, being a contractor, was not entitled to the deduction. 5.2. The CIT(A) observed that the facts and issues pertaining to the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act for the year under consideration are identical to those in AY 2016-17, where the same sites were involved, and no new sites were introduced during the current year. The CIT(A) carefully reviewed the facts and details on record and noted that they are akin to the material considered in AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision of this bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 118/Ahd/2009 and others (ITA NO. 2202/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2016-17), dated 13.05.2022, which allowed the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act on similar grounds. The CIT(A) relied on this binding decision and referenced the Order Giving Effect (OGE) dated 31.01.2023, where the AO gave effect to the ITAT's decision for AY 2016-17. Given the similarity of facts and the absence of any contrary orders, the CIT(A) followed the precedent set by the ITAT and held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act for the current year should also be allowed. ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 6 5.3. We have gone through the order(s) of the AO and the CIT(A) and noted that the details of deduction claimed by the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 u/s. 80IA of the Act are as follows: No. Name of Work/Site Contract Awarding Authority 1 50 MLD WTP Dhodka Site Work Ex. Engr. (Water Works Project), Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan 2 Baroda Site Ring Road Work Ex. Engr. R&B Dept. Vadodara 3 Gajarwadi Sewage Treatment Plant Ex. Engr. Mahanagar Seva Sadan, Vadodara 4 Hirabaug BRTS Road Site Addl. City Engr., Surat Municipal Corporation 5 Motera Sewage Pumping Station Spl. City Engr., Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation 6 Rajkot STP 56 MLD Addl. City Engr., Rajkot Municipal Corporation 7 Rajkot STP 70 MLD Gauridad Addl. City Engr., Rajkot Municipal Corporation 8 Shashtri Bridge Baroda Work Ex. Engr. (Bridge Project), Vadodara 9 STP Gandhinagar Work Ex. Engr., Patnagar Yojana Vibhag-3, Gandhinagar 10 43 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant, Kapurai Ex. Engr. (JANURM), Vadodara 11 STP Patan 25 MLD Gujarat Urban Development Co. Ltd. 12 Uttkal Nagar Bridge Work Addl. City Engr., Surat Municipal Corporation 13 Viramgam Nilki Railway Crossing Bridge Work Ex. Engr., R&B Division, Ahmedabad 5.4. More particularly, we note that the assessee has submitted before CIT(A) a comparative statement of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18 which is reproduced here for the sake of clarity and record: ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 7 No. Name of Site Amount U/s 80IA Allowed by ITAT (AY 2015-16) (Rs.) Amount U/s 80IA Allowed by ITAT (AY 2016-17) (Rs.) Amount Claimed by the Appellant (AY 2017-18) (Rs.) 1 50MLD WTP Dhodka Site Work 1,53,85,543 1,32,95,141 -57,158 2 Akota Bridge Site Work 49,84,301 -5,428 - 3 Akota Road Site Work 66,58,384 -32,193 - 4 Baroda Site Ring Road Work -1,24,288 - -1,21,334 5 BRTS Surat Road Project 2,49,47 ,987 -2,72,900 - 6 Delhi gate over bridge at Surat -62,07,067 - - 7 Gajarawadi Sewage Treatment Plant - - 1,05,151 8 Hirabaug BRTS Road site 1,05,52,636 87,21,143 67,85,948 9 IPCL Fly over bridge - -2,30,341 - 10 Motera Sewage Pumping Station -2,30,331 -20,29,881 -30,90,841 11 Rajkot STP 56MLD Raiyadhar -98,224 1,19,72,185 3,49,17,888 12 Rajkot STP 70MLD Guaridad -3,43,73,125 -10,08,958 - 13 Shashtri Bridge Baroda Work - 42,36,469 16,74,160 14 Soma Talav Over Bridge Approach Road -2,62,142 -4,839 - 15 STP Gandhinagar work - -1,65,909 - 16 43 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant, Kapurai 26,84,292 -12,26,408 - 17 STP Patan 25 MLD 1,03,46,440 24,37,565 21,49,328 ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 8 18 STP Vasana 106 MLD 7,75,084 -1,75,852 - 19 Utkal Nagar Bridge Work 73,78,060 6,22,475 -16,69,938 20 Viramgam Nikli Railway Crossing Bridge Work - - 47,23,167 21 Pratapnagar Over Bridge -27,765 - - TOTAL 80IA CLAIMED 8,90,88,333 5,31,52,885 5,03,55,641 5.5. During the course of hearing before us, similar comparative statement for the A.Y. 2018-19 was also submitted which is also reproduced here for the sake of clarity and record: No. Name of Site Amount U/s 80IA Allowed by ITAT (AY 2015-16) (Rs.) Amount U/s 80IA Allowed by ITAT (AY 2016-17) (Rs.) Amount Claimed by the Appellant (AY 2018- 19) (Rs.) 1 50MLD WTP Dhodka Site Work 1,53,85,543 1,32,95,141 43,28,934 2 Akota Bridge Site Work 49,84,301 -5,428 - 3 Akota Road Site Work 66,58,434 -32,193 - 4 Baroda Site Ring Road Work -1,24,288 - - 5 BRTS Surat Road Project 2,49,47,987 -2,72,900 - 6 Delhi Gate Over Bridge at Surat -62,07,607 - - 7 Gajarawadi Sewage Treatment Plant - - - 8 Hirabaug BRTS Road Site 1,05,52,636 87,21,143 24,44,926 9 IPCL Fly Over Bridge 53,75,614 62,61,908 - ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 9 10 Motera Sewage Pumping Station -2,30,331 -20,29,281 - 11 Rajkot STP 56MLD Raiyadhar -98,224 1,19,72,185 4,02,32,222 12 Rajkot STP 70MLD Guaridad -3,43,73,125 -10,08,958 2,10,88,301 13 Shashtri Bridge Baroda Work 42,36,469 - 3,80,260 14 Soma Talav Over Bridge Approach Road -2,62,142 -4,839 - 15 STP Gandhinagar Work - -1,65,909 34,68,938 16 43 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant, Kapurai 26,84,292 -12,26,408 35,94,588 17 STP Patan 25 MLD 1,03,46,440 24,37,565 32,15,468 18 STP Vasana 106 MLD 7,75,024 -1,75,858 - 19 Utkal Nagar Bridge Work 73,78,060 62,28,475 30,15,926 20 Viramgam Nikli Railway Crossing Bridge Work - - - 21 Pratapnagar Over Bridge -27,765 - - TOTAL 80IA CLAIMED 8,90,88,333 5,31,52,885 8,17,69,563 5.6. We also note the findings of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case of earlier years where it was found that the assessee took significant financial and operational risks, including arranging for its own finance, purchasing materials, deploying its own manpower, and handling the entire scope of infrastructure development projects, which goes beyond the role of a mere works contractor. The Co-ordinate Bench relied on the ruling in the case of Radhe Developers v. CIT [(2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj)], which clarified that ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 10 a developer's eligibility for deductions under Section 80IA of the Act should not depend on whether they own the land or are merely executing a contract. The critical factor is the assumption of risks and responsibilities, which in this case was demonstrated by the assessee. It was observed that the assessee undertook full responsibility for the infrastructure projects, including financing, technical planning, and execution. It arranged for necessary materials, deployed labour, and even provided safety measures at the sites. This level of responsibility and financial involvement qualified the assessee as a developer. 5.7. From the tables above, it is evident that the nature of the projects for which deductions under section 80IA of the Act were claimed in the earlier years (AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17) remains consistent with the projects claimed in AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19. The sites for which deductions were allowed previously are largely the same, demonstrating a pattern in the type of infrastructure and public utility projects, such as sewage treatment plants, road projects, and bridges, for which the assessee continues to claim deductions. This consistency supports the contention that the assessee is claiming deductions for similar types of eligible infrastructure projects, indicating adherence to the criteria under section 80IA of the Act across multiple assessment years. 5.8. The Co-ordinate Bench also dealt with the Explanation to Section 80IA(13) of the Act. The Explanation to Section 80IA(13) of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2009, aimed to disallow deductions for entities executing works contracts. The AO had invoked this provision to deny the deduction. However, the Co-ordinate Bench found that this explanation was ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 11 inapplicable because the assessee was not merely a contractor, but a developer undertaking comprehensive projects with financial and technical responsibilities. The Co-ordinate Bench concluded that the explanation was not intended to exclude entities like the assessee that undertook the entire development of infrastructure facilities. 5.9. We also note that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of The PCIT (Central), Ahmedabad vs. Montecarlo Construction Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 786 of 2023) has dismissed the appeal of Revenue. While dismissing the appeal of Revenue the Hon’ble High Court reiterated that the critical distinction between a developer and a works contractor lies in the nature of responsibilities and risks undertaken by the entity. The court emphasized that an entity acting as a developer assumes both managerial and financial risks in the project, including aspects such as design, procurement, and execution, as well as bearing responsibility for timely completion and operational management of the infrastructure. The Hon’ble Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings that Montecarlo Construction Ltd. took on substantial financial risks for the development of infrastructure facilities, including arranging finances, purchasing materials, managing labor, and ensuring project execution. The responsibility for mobilization of resources and project financing was a key factor in distinguishing the assessee as a developer. The court clarified that even if the projects were funded by the Government through periodic payments, the overall responsibility and risk borne by the assessee in managing the project qualified it as a developer under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also relied on judicial precedents, particularly the judgements in the case of Radhe Developers v. CIT [(2012) 341 ITR 403 (Guj)] and ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 189 ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 12 Taxmann 54 (Bom HC)], which held that entities engaged in comprehensive infrastructure development can claim deductions under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, even if they are labelled as contractors in agreements. The key criterion is the assumption of financial and operational risks. The Hon’ble High Court also ruled the inapplicability of Explanation to Section 80IA(13) of the Act stating that this explanation did not apply in this case, as the assessee's activities went beyond merely executing a works contract and the assessee was involved in the comprehensive development of infrastructure, including the design, construction, and management of the projects, and thus could not be classified as a works contractor. 5.10. Given the consistent judicial pronouncements, including the Gujarat High Court's rulings in Radhe Developers and Montecarlo Construction, and the reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). The assessee’s activities and responsibilities clearly establish it as a developer, and the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Actwas rightly allowed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) is upheld. 6. Ground (c) of ITA No. 1466/Ahd/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 pertains to the issue raised by the Revenue regarding the CIT(A)’s allowance of the entire deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, without considering the set-off of losses of Rs.49,39,271/- from loss-making infrastructure units. The AO disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the assessee failed to adjust these losses, which, according to the AO, violated the provisions of Section 80A(2) of the Act. The AO contended that the assessee did not appropriately ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 13 set off the losses from certain infrastructure facilities before claiming the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Section 80A(2) of the Act mandates that the gross total income be computed after adjusting any losses from the eligible business (in this case, infrastructure facilities). Therefore, any profits from infrastructure units should be adjusted against losses incurred by other infrastructure units before the net profit is considered for deduction. Based on this interpretation, the AO disallowed Rs.49,39,271/- from the deduction under Section 80IA on the grounds that the losses from four infrastructure units were not set off against the profits from other units. 6.1. The assessee argued that the overall computation of profits and losses for the infrastructure units was done in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the set-off of losses was factored into the gross total income before claiming the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee emphasized that the losses were from certain specific projects, but the total profits from the infrastructure business were positive, justifying the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act without any further adjustment. 6.2. The CIT(A) examined the details of the losses and concluded that the computation of profits and losses from the infrastructure facilities was correct. The CIT(A) was satisfied that the assessee had already accounted for the set-off of losses in the calculation of its gross total income. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case of earlier year. The Co-ordinate Bench relied on the judicial precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer [(2008) 299 ITR 444 (SC)], where it was held that losses must indeed be set off against profits when computing the deduction under Section 80A(2) of the ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 14 Act. Since the overall profits remained positive even after adjusting for these losses, the CIT(A) held that the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was allowable in full. 6.2. In light of the above analysis and the fact that the assessee has appropriately set off the losses as per the requirements of Section 80A(2) of the Act, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was correctly allowed in full, after adjusting for the losses from loss-making units. Therefore, Ground (c) raised by the Revenue is dismissed, and the decision of the CIT(A) is upheld. 7. The remaining grounds are generic in nature hence not adjudicated. 8. In the combined result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No. 1466/Ahd/2024 for AY 2017-18 and in ITA No. 1467/Ahd/2024 for AY 2018- 19 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28 October, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अहमदाबाद/Ahmedabad, िदनांक/Dated 28/10/2024 टी.सी.नायर, व.िन.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS ITA Nos.1466 & 1467/Ahd/2024 ACIT vs. Rajkamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Asst. Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively 15 आदेश की #ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु' ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)-(NFAC), Delhi 5. िवभागीय #ितिनिध , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //True Copy// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (word processed by Hon’ble AM in his laptop) : 25.10.2024 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 25.10.2024 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S : 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement. : 5. Date on which fair order placed before Other Member : 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S. : 28.10.2024 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 28.10.2024 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order : "