The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan V. Ranjit Projects Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2304/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8200 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

V , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPE CTIVELY) DCIT, PATAN CIRCLE, PATAN ROOM NO.104, 1 ST FLOOR SANTOKABA HALL, RAJMAHAL ROAD, PATAN 384 265 # VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT.LTD. NATWARLAL ISHWARLAL & CO. BUILDING 110, OLD MARKET YARD, UNJHA 384 170 $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : AACCR 1363 G ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.D.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, A.R. + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 23/10/2017 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/10/2017 3# O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS ARE TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS)- GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD, DATED 06/06/2013, 12/05/201 4 & 19/05/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2 011-12 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 2 - 2. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON IN ALL THE AP PEALS AND ALL THREE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY A COMMON AND CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS T AKEN FOR DISCUSSION IN DETAIL AND THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE: I. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.3,76 ,68,740/- U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. II. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- APPELLANT COMPANY HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26/09/2009 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(IV) OF THE ACT. T HE AO HELD THAT THE COMPANY HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH GSRDC, W HICH IS NEITHER ANY CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENT NOR STATUTORY BODY AND DENIED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED. BUT MAIN GROUND BEFORE THE IMPUG NED AUTHORITY WAS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S .80IA(4)(I)(A) OF THE ACT AT RS.3,76,68,739/-. THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S .80IA(4) WAS DENIED BY THE AO AFTER HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT ENTERED IN TO AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE GOVERNMENT/STATUTORY BODY AND HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH GSRDC ONLY. 3.2 THEREAFTER, A NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAS MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS U NDER: ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 3 - I. THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,76,68,739/- DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA(4) OF T HE I.T. ACT. THE FACTS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE APPELLANT IS A COMPANY ASSESSED TO TAX. THE APP ELLANT COMPANY HAS UNDERTAKEN A BOT CONTRACT FROM THE GOVERNMENT O F GUJARAT WHEREBY IT CONSTRUCTED ROB AT CHARNI, VADODARA. THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT ISSUED NOTIFICATION AUTHORIZING THE APPE LLANT COMPANY TO COLLECT TOLL AND ACCORDINGLY THE COMPANY HAS BEEN C OLLECTING TOLL TAX AS PER THE RATES AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT O F GUJARAT IN THE NOTIFICATION. 2. THE A.G. AUDIT PARTY POINTED OUT THAT NO DEDUCTION U/S.80IA SHOULD BE ALLOWED SINCE THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT ENTE RED INTO CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT BUT HAS ENT ERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH G.S.R.D.C. WHICH IS A CORPORATION IN CORPORATED UNDER 'THE COMPANIES ACT. 3. THE APPELLANT FILED DETAILED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD .A.O. THAT G.S.R.D.C. WAS GOVERNMENT AGENCY WORKING UNDER THE FULL CONTROL AND APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT AS EXPLAI NED IN ITS LETTER DATED, 26-12-2011 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT PASSED A RESOLUTION DATED 20- 02-1999 WHEREBY IT WAS RESOLVED AS UNDER: 1. IT IS FELT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROAD IN THE GUJA RAT STATE COULD BE COMPLETED AT A FASTER PACE IF THE DEPENDENCY ON STA TE FINANCE IS REDUCED. AS A SOLUTION TO THIS THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED TO LET SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT WORKS BE UNDERTAKEN BY PRIVATE PARTIES WITH RESOURCES BEING CONTRIBUTED BY THEM AND OTHER LENDERS. TO THIS EFFECT, THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A ROADS DE VELOPMENT CORPORATION TO HELP IMPROVE THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE STATE. THE CORPORATION WILL UNDERTAKE WORKS INVOLVING ROAD S, BRIDGES, FLY-OVERS, UNDERGROUND ROADS. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATI ON, THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED TO ESTABLISH THE GUJARAT STA TE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE C ORPORATION ARE AS UNDER:- I. OBJECT OF THE CORPORATION INTER ALIA INCLUDE: A. TO UNDERTAKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS AND ROADS. B. TO RAISE FINANCIAL RESOURCES FROM BANKS, INSTITUTIO NS, MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 4 - C. TO COMMERCIALLY DEVELOP AND EXPLOIT LAND ALONGSIDE THE ROADS/BRIDGES. D. OTHER OBJECTS DRAW UP PLANS FOR THE PROJECTS, PRE PARE FEASIBILITY STUDIES BECOME A CONSULTANT OR APPOINT CONSULTANT OR ENVIRONMENT STUDIES ETC. II. THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ABOVE DECISION ORDERS THAT CORPORATION SHALL BE REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND ITS INITIAL AUTHORIZED CAPITAL WILL BE RS. 5 CR ORES. INITIALLY THE GOVERNMENT SHALL HOLD 100% OF PAID UP CAPITAL A GGREGATING RS.5 CRORES. THIS CAPITAL MAY BE INCREASED SUBSEQUE NTLY FOR WHICH THE RELEVANT PERMISSIONS WILL BE SOUGHT BY TH E CORPORATION. III. THE PROPOSED OBJECTS OF THE CORPORATION WILL BE RES TRICTED TO WORKS UNDERTAKEN, UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ROA DS AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ALSO AS DIRECTED BY THE GOV ERNMENT OF GUJARAT. IV. THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION WILL BE IN GANDHINAGAR AND ITS ADDRESS WILL BE AS UNDER:- NIRMAN BHAVAN, SECTOR NO. 10A, . GANDHINAGAR-382010 V. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE C ORPORATION WILL BE AS UNDER:- A) HON. MINISTER (ROADS & BUILDINGS): EX-OFFICIO CH AIRMAN CHIEF SECRETARY : EX. OFFICE VICE CHAIRMAN B) FOUR EXPERTS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNMENT: DIRECT ORS C) SECRETARY, ROAD & BUILDING DEPARTMENT: DIRECTOR D) SPECIAL SECRETARY & CHIEF ENGINEER (CP): DIRECTO R E) AN OFFICER FROM THE ROADS & BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN THE CATEGORY OF CHIEF ENGINEER AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY : MANAGING DIRECTOR A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. 2. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, R & O.B. DEPARTMENT BY ITS R ESOLUTION DATED 04-08-1999 ENTRUSTED THE WORK OF VARIOUS PROJ ECTS TO GUJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ONE OF SUCH PROJECTS WAS ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 5 - CHHAYAPURI ROB, NEAR GSFC JUNCTION, VADODARA. A COP Y OF RESOLUTION IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. 3. TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR PARTICIPATIO N OF PRIVATE PARTIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORKS OF ROADS, BRIDGES ETC THE GUJARAT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1999 WAS ENACTED ON 05-10-1999, CONCESSION AGREEMENT, DEVELOPER, GOVERNMENT AGENCY, INFRASTRUCTURE ETC HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN SECTION 2 O F THE ACT. GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS DEFINED AS UNDER:- GOVERNMENT AGENCY MEANS A CORPORATION OR A BODY OW NED OR CONTROLLED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR AN AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED BY OR UNDER ANY LAW AND INCLUDES A LOCAL AUTHORITY A COPY OF THIS ACT IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. 4. GSRDC BY ITS LETTER DATED 26-07-2000 ADDRESSED TO S HRI RAVI SAXENA, IAS, CEO, GIDB SOUGHT APPROVAL FOR FOUR LIN ING OF ROB NEAR CHHAYAPURI, NEAR GSFC JUNCTION, VADODARA. A CO PY OF THIS LETTER IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH. 5. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, ROADS & BUILDING DEPARTMENT, GANDHINAGAR BY ITS RESOLUTION DATED, 01/08/2002 ALL OTTED THE LAND FOR CHHAYAPURI, NEAR GSFC JUNCTION, VADODARA SINCE AGREEMENT WAS TO BE ENTERED INTO THROUGH G.S.R.D.C. FOR CONST RUCTION OF ROB ON BOT BASIS. A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION IS SUBMITTE D HEREWITH. 6. THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY G.S.R.D.C. WITH RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT O F GUJARAT IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 24-10-2000. WE SUBMIT HEREWITH A CO PY OF LETTER DATED, 01/01/2001 ADDRESSED BY GOVERNMENT OF GUJARA T TO G.S.R.D.C. ALONG WITH ITS MINUTES. WE SUBMIT HEREWI TH COPY OF GIST OF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN G.S.R.D .C. AND R.P.P.L. ON PAGE 9 OF THE AGREEMENT 'GOVERNMENT AGE NCY' IS DEFINED WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 'GOVERNMENT AGENCY' MEANS GSRDC, R & B.D.(GOG) OR ANY STATE GOVERNMENT ETC. 4. (A) IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. BY HI S SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED, 09-12-2011 U/S.142(1) CALLED UPON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED AT RS.3,76,68,739 /- U/S. ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 6 - 80IA(4) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. A COPY OF THIS NO TICE IS COMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. (B) THE APPELLANT BY ITS LETTER DATED, 26-12-2011 R EPLIED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN DETAIL WITH EVIDENCE AND EXPLA IN THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA(4) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLO WED. (C) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD. A.O. HAS OBSERV ED IN PARA 6&7AS UNDER:- 6. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED AND FOU ND NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY PROVIDED UNDE R SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT THAT THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, OPERATING OR MA INTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DED UCTION, PROVIDED THAT IT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEM ENT FOR THE SAME WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMEN T, A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY. 7. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO ANY ASSIGNMENT AS SUCH WITH CENTRAL/ST ATE GOVERNMENT LOCAL AUTHORITY OR A STATUTORY BODY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH GSRDC, A C ORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. AS SUCH THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT FULFILL IMPORTANT CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED U/S.80IA(4) THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPING, OPERATING OR MAI NTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED WI TH CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL AUTHORITY OR A STATUTORY BODY. TH EREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION OF THAT SECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS AS UNDER:- I. THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJ'ARAT, R & B DEPARTMENT PA SSED GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION NO. MIS-1098/ (50)/C DATED, 2 0 TH FEBRUARY, 1999 AS STATED IN DETAIL ABOVE. A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IS COMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS OBS ERVED IN THE SAID RESOLUTION THAT, THIS GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIO N ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 7 - ISSUED WITH 'THE CONCURRENCE OF THE FINANCE DEPARTM ENT OBTAINED ON 29-01-1999 ON THIS DEPARTMENT FILE OF E VEN NUMBER. IN THE SAID RESOLUTION FINALLY IT IS WRITTEN AS UND ER:- 'BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF GUJARA T.' 2. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, R&B DEPARTMENT BY ITS RESOLU TION DATED 04- 08-1999 ENTRUSTED THE WORK OF VARIOUS PROJECTS TO G UJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 'LTD. AND ONE OF SUCH PROJE CTS WAS CHHAYAPURI ROB, NEAR GSFC JUNCTION, VADODARA. A COP Y OF THIS RESOLUTION IS COMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 3. TO IMPLEMENT THE GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR PARTICIPATIO N OF PRIVATE PARTIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORKS OF ROAD, BRIDGES E TC THE GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1999 WAS ENACTED ON 05-10-1999. CONCESSION AGREEMENT, DEVELOPER, GOVERNMENT AGENCY, INFRASTRUCTURE ETC HAVE BEEN DEFINED IN SECTION 2 OF THE ACT. ACCO RDINGLY, GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS DEFINED AS UNDER:- GOVERNMENT AGENCY MEANS, A CORPORATION, OR A BODY OWN OR CONTROL BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR AN AUTHORITY EST ABLISHED BY OR UNDER ANY LAW AND INCLUDES A LOCAL AUTHORITY. A COPY OF THIS ACT IS COMPLIED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 4. GSRDC BY ITS LETTER DATED, 26-07-2000 ADDRESSED TO SHRI RAVI SAXENA, IAS, GIDB SOUGHT APPROVAL FOR FOUR LINING OF CHHAYA PURI ROB, NEAR GSFC JUNCTION, VADODARA. A COPY OF THIS LETTER IS C OMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 5. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, ROADS & BUILDING DEPARTMENT; GANDHINAGAR BY ITS RESOLUTION DATED, 01-08-2002 ALLOTTED THE LA ND FOR CHHAYAPURI NEAR GSFC JUNCTION, VADODARA AS THE AGREEMENT WAS T O BE ENTERED WITH THE APPELLANT BY GSRDC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROB ON BOT BASIS. A. COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION IS COMPILED IN THE PAPER BO OK. 6. THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY GSRDC WITH THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF G UJARAT IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 24-10-2000. A COPY OF LETTER DATED, 01-01-2001 ADDRESSED BY GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT TO GSRDC ALONG W ITH ITS MINUTES IS COMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. A COPY OF THE CONCE SSION AGREEMENT UPTO DEFINITIONS IS ALSO COMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK . THE DEFINITION OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS GIVEN ON PAGE NO. 9 AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 8 - 'GOVERNMENT AGENCY MEANS, GSRDC, R & BD (GOG) OR AN Y STATE GOVERNMENT OR GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, COMMISSION, BO ARD, BODY, BUREAU, AGENCY, AUTHORITY, INSTRUMENTALITY, OR OTHE R JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, CENTRAL, STATE OR LOCAL HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE CONCESSIONAL, THE PROJECT ASSETS OR ANY PORTION THE REOF OR THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL OR ANY OF THE SERVICES OR OBLIGA TIONS OF THE CONCESSIONAL UNDER OR PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT.' FURTHER 'GSRDC' IS DEFINED AS UNDER:- 'GSRDC MEANS GUJARAT STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORA TION LTD.' 7. THE APPELLANT UNDER THE CONCESSIONAL AGREEMENT DATE D 30-10-2011 COMPLETED THE WORK OF ROB, NEAR CHHAYAPURI, NEAR GS FC JUNCTION, VADODARA (CONSTRUCTION OF CHHAYAPURI ROB IN LIEU OF EXISTING UNDERPASS NO.6 ACROSS MUMBAI-DELHI RAILWAY LINE NEA R GSFC JUNCTION ON BOT BASIS BY THE END OF FEBRUARY, 2003 AND THEREFORE, GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, R & B DEPARTMENT ISSUED AN O RDER NO.TOLL/102001-(29)-PART-1 PVT. CELL DATED 07-03-20 03 PERMITTING THE APPELLANT TO COLLECT TOLL FEE AS INDICATED THEREIN. A COPY OF THIS ORDER IS COMPILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE APPELLANT RESPECTFU LLY SUBMITS THAT THIS CONCESSION AGREEMENT IS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJA RAT THROUGH ITS AGENCY GSRDC. IT IS THEREFORE, VERY RESPECTFULLY UR GED THAT, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPEL LANT U/S.80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. GSRDC, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANI ES ACT IS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION DATED, 20 TH FEBRUARY, 1999 AND 100% OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS SPECIFICALLY RESOLVE D IN THE RESOLUTION THAT GSRDC WILL BE REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES A CT AS 100% OWNED COMPANY AND THEREFORE,, THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE GSRDC IS NOTHING BUT THE AGREEME NT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS. 3.3 BUT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER : IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT ENTERED INTO ANY ASSIGNMENT AS SUCH WITH CENTRAL/STATE GOVT. LOCAL A UTHORITY OR A STATUTORY ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 9 - BODY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A CONCESSION AG REEMENT WITH GSRDC, A CORPORATION INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANI ES ACT. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FULFILL IMPORTANT CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED U/S.80IA(4) THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPING, OPER ATING OR MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERE D WITH CENTRAL/STATE GOVT. LOCAL AUTHORITY OR A STATUTORY BODY. THEREFOR E IT IS HELD THAT DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT IS IN VIOL ATION OF THE PROVISION OF THAT SECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,76,68,739/-. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND P ARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. IT IS HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE CONCESSIONAL AGREEMENT AND THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS CLEARLY NOT ONLY EXECUTED IN AGR EEMENT WITH GSRDC BUT THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT. THIS IS CLEAR FROM: (A) THE APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT I.E., FOUR LINING OF C HHAYAPURI ROB, NEAR GSFC JUNCTION, VADODARA WAS SOUGHT FROM THE GU JARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY THE GSRDC. (B) GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, ROADS & BUILDING DEPARTMENT, GANDHINAGAR BY ITS RESOLUTION DATED. 01/08/2002 ALL OTTED THE LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROB ON BOT BASIS. (C) THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY GSRDS WITH THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF G UJARAT IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 24/10/2000. ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 10 - (D) GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT, R&B DEPARTMENT ISSUED AN ORD ER NO. TOLL/102001-(29)-PART-1 PVT. CELL DATED. 07/03/2003 PERMITTING THE APPELLANT TO COLLECT TOLL FEE AS INDICATED THEREIN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEVELOPED, OPERATED AND WAS TO TRANSFER THE PROJECT IN AGREEME NT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL BODY I.E. AN AGENCY AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(E) OF THE GUJARAT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1999 UNDER THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT ACT AND ALSO IN DIRECT AND EXPLICIT AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF GUJARAT GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN LAND AND ALLOWED TO COLLECT TOLL FEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)INCLUDI NG 80IA(4)(I)(B) AND HAS DEVELOPED, OPERATED AND WAS TO TRANSFER THE INF RASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND THEREFORE, WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION CLAIM ED UNDER THE SECTION. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOM PRAKASH REKHI (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE SAI D CASE, DISPUTE WAS BETWEEN BURMAH SHELL, COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES A CT, 1956, AND ONE OF ITS FORMER EMPLOYEES. THE COMPANY M/S. BURMA H SHELL WAS ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND LATER IT WAS KN OWN AS BHARAT PETROLEUM. A WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY THE EMPLOYE E AGAINST BHARAT PETROLEUM. A PRELIMINARILY OBJECTION AROSE AS TO WH ETHER THE WRIT PETITION WAS MAINTAINABLE AGAINST M/S. BHARAT PETRO LEUM AS IT WAS NEITHER A STATUTORY CORPORATION AND NOR A GOVERNMENT DEPART MENT. THE COURT EXAMINED WHETHER IT WAS A STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT LA ID DOWN CERTAIN TESTS IN THIS CONTEXT AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE HEA D NOTES OF JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 11 - 2. SOME OF THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY THIS COURT FOR D ECIDING WHETHER A BODY IS STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 ARE: (I) IF THE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE CORPORATION IS H ELD BY GOVERNMENT, IT WOULD GO A WAY TOWARDS INDICATING THAT THE CORPO RATION IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT. (II) A FINDING OF STATE FINANCIAL SUPPORTS PLUS AN UNUSU AL DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THE MANAGEMENT AND POLICIES MIGHT LEAD , ONE TO CHARACTERIZE AN OPERATION AS STATE ACTION. (III) THE EXISTENCE OF DEEP AND PERVASIVE STATE CONTROL M AY AFFORD AN INDICATION THAT THE CORPORATION IS A STATE AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY. (IV) WHETHER THE CORPORATION ENJOYS MONOPOLY STATUS WHIC H IS STATE CONFERRED OR STATE PROTECTED IS A RELEVANT FACTOR. (V) IF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CORPORATION ARE IMPORTANT P UBLIC FUNCTIONS AND RELATED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IT WOULD BE A RELEVANT FACTOR IN CLASSIFYING THE CORPORATION AS INSTRUMENTALITY OR AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT. (VI) IF A DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT IS TRANSFERRED TO A C ORPORATION, IT WOULD BE A STRONG FACTOR SUPPORTIVE OF THE INFERENC E THAT IT IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE (VII) WHERE THE CHEMISTRY OF THE CORPORATE BODY ANSWERS THE TES T OF STATE IF COMES WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF ARTICLE (VIII) WHETHER THE LEGAL PERSON IS A CORPORATION CREATED B Y A STATUTE, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM UNDER A STATUE IS NOT AN IMPORTA NT CRITERION ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN INDICIUM. 18. AS PER THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IF THE AFORES AID TESTS ARE FULFILLED BY AN ENTITY, IT WOULD QUALIFY TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF STATE. AS PER THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE AFORESAID TESTS PROVIDE AN AID T O DETERMINE WHETHER A BODY IS A STATE WITHIN MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, EMPHASIZING THE IMPORT OF TH E AFORESAID TESTS, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT TRUE TEST IS NOT H OW THE LEGAL ENTITY IN QUESTION WAS CREATED BUT WHY IT WAS CREATED. THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 12 - ALSO OBSERVED THAT ALL THE TESTS MAY NOT BE APPLICA BLE OR SATISFIED IN A GIVEN CASE, BUT ONE WILL HAVE TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION B ASED ON THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE SAID TESTS. 19. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT SSN NL COMPLIES WITH ALL THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOM PRAKASH REKHI (SUPRA) FIRST TEST IS WHETHER THE SHARE CAPIT AL OF THE CORPORATION IS HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EN TIRE SHARE CAPITAL OF SSNNL IS ADMITTEDLY OWNED AND HELD , BY THE GOVERNM ENT OF GUJARAT. THE SECOND TEST IS AS TO WHETHER THE STATE EXERCISES UN USUAL DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THE MANAGEMENT AND POLICIES AND FINANCIAL SUP PORT IS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAID TEST IS FULFILLED IN CASE OF SSNNL AS PER THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE BY THE AH MEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGA M LTD.. MOREOVER, THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOC IATION OF SSNNL CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID CONCERN IS OPERATIN G UNDER SUPERINTENDENCE AND DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT BEFORE US THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE SSNNL ARE DRAWN FROM THE OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT. THE NEXT TEST IS THE EXI STENCE OF DEEP AND PERVASIVE STATE CONTROL. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT EMERGE S THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SSNNL ARE APPOINTED BY THE GUJARAT GOV ERNMENT AND IT CONSISTS OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES OF THE RANK OF SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL SECRETARIES. THE NEXT TEST IS WHETHER THE CORPORATI ON ENJOYS MONOPOLY STATUS WHICH IS OTHERWISE CONFERRED ON A STATE. THE OBJECTS TO BE PURSUED BY THE SSNNL, THE POWERS CONFERRED ON IT, AS REVEALED BY THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT SSNNL IS IN THE AC TIVITY OF EXECUTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE SARDAR SAROVAR PROJEC T COMPRISING OF A DAM ACROSS RIVER NARMADA, A CANAL SYSTEM THE SARDAR SAR OVAR POWER HOUSES AT THE FOOT OF THE SAID DAM, ETC.. ALL THESE ASPECT CL EARLY SHOW THAT SSNNL IS INVOLVED IN CARRYING OUT STATE MONOPOLY FUNCTIONS, LIKE OPERATION OF AIRPORTS, PORTS, RAILWAYS, ETC.. THE NEXT TEST IS W HETHER FUNCTIONS PERFORMED ARE IMPORTANT PUBLIC FUNCTIONS RELATED TO GOVERNMEN TAL FUNCTIONS. IN THE CASE OF SSNNL, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT APART FROM EXECUTING OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE SARDAR SAROVAR PROJECT IT IS ALSO I NVOLVED PROMOTING SCHEMES IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT FOR FLOOD CONTROL I N THE NARMADA RIVER, IRRIGATION AND WATER SUPPLY SCHEMES FOR UTILIZATION OF WATER FROM SARDAR SAROVAR. ALL THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY GOVERNMENT FUNCT IONS AND OBLIGATIONS, WHICH ARE BEING PERFORMED BY SSNNL. THE NEXT TEST IS IF A DEPARTMENT OF A GOVERNMENT TRANSFERRED TO A CORPORATION. IN THIS CO NTEXT, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE ERSTWHILE NARMADA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C ONSISTING OF ITS ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 13 - EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS THE ASSET OF SARDAR SAROVAR PR OJECT WERE TRANSFERRED ENBLOC BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT TO SSNNL. THE NEXT TEST IS AS TO WHETHER THE CHEMISTRY OF THE CONCERNED BODY ANSWERS THE TEST OF A STATE. IN OUR VIEW, THE SAID TEST IS ALSO FULFILLED IN THE FA CE OF THE FACT THAT THE INCORPORATION OF SSNNL, ITS OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, CONTROL AS WELL AS THE POWERS HAVE A UNMISTAKABLE STAMP OF A GOVERNMENT. 20. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN OUR VIE W, THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOM PRAKAS H REKHI (SUPRA) ARE FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DEDUCE THAT SSNNL IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OR AN AGENCY OF THE STA TE. THEREFORE, SSNNL IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN ENTITY AKIN TO THOSE SPECIFI ED IN SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (I) TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IA OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE, THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE THAT SSNNL WAS A COMPANY I NCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS TH EREFORE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT IS UNFOUND ED. IN-FACT, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOM PRAKASH REKHI (SUP RA) SPECIFICALLY OBSERVED THAT MERELY BECAUSE AN ENTITY IS CREATED U NDER A STATUTE AND NOT CREATED BY A STATUE IS NOT AN IMPORTANT CRITERIA. T HE TEST RELATING TO THE PURPOSE, STATE CONTROL AND FUNCTIONS PERFORMED ARE MORE IMPORTANT AND DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE. SUCH CONTROL AND FUNCTI ONS PERFORMED ARE MORE IMPORTANT AND DETERMINED OF THE ISSUE. SUCH TESTS, IN OUR VIEW, ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SSNNL, AND IT IS TO BE UN DERSTOOD AS AN ENTITY SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80IA (4) (I) (B) OF THE ACT. 8. LEARNED AR CITED AN ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH I N ITA NO.3081/AHD/2014 AND CONTENDS THAT IRCTC IS A 100% OWNED COMPANY OF GOVT. OF INDIA EARLIER THE CATERING WAS DONE BY RAILWAYS. SUBSEQUENTLY OBSERVING THE MANIFOLD INCREASE IN CATERING FOR EXP EDIENCY GOVT. FORMED ITS SUPPORTING ARM BY CONSTITUTING THE IRCTC AS A 1 00% OWNED COMPANY. ITAT, PUNE HAS THREADBARE EXAMINED ALL ASP ECTS INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT IS FUL LY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. THEREFORE, IT IS ALTERNATIVELY URGED THAT IRC TC FOR ALL LEGAL AND PRACTICAL PURPOSES BEING A GOVT. NO TDS IS DEDUCTIB LE BY ASSESSEE FROM ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 14 - ANY PAYMENT MADE TO IT INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED LICEN SE FEE. ON THIS COUNT ALSO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A) (IA), CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 9. LEARNED AR CITED AN ORDER OF ITAT BENCH (PUNE) [ 2016] 69 TAXMANN.COM 78 (PUNE-TRIB), IN THE CASE OF KIRLOSKA R BROTHERS LTD. VS. DCIT. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE RE VENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFIL THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED I N SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (I) TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IA OF TH E ACT. IN TERMS OF THE SAID OBJECTION, THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A WORKS CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH SSNNL WHICH IS NOT AN ENTITY SPECIFIED IN SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT. AC CORDING TO THE REVENUE, SSNNL IS NOT A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY, SO AS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN ENTITY SPECIFIED IN SUB-CLAUSE(B) OF SECTION 80IA(4 )(I) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE REVENUE, SSNNL IS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER TH E COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PRESCRIPTION OF S UB-CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE REVENUE, THOUGH T HE ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL IN THE SAID COMPANY IS OWNED EITHER BY THE CENTRAL OR THE STATE GOVERNMENT, YET IT CAN ONLY BE CALLED A GOVERNMENT COMPANY BUT IT DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ENTITIES SP ECIFIED IN SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. IN THIS MATTER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS VEHEMENTLY REITERATED THE POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE TAKEN BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CONTRACT WITH SSNNL FULFILLS THE CONDITION ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 15 - PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 80IA(4)(I)(B) OF THE ACT. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE TWO-FOLD. FIRSTLY, IT HAS REFERRED TO THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF (I) SOM PRAKAS H REKHI VS. UNION OF INDIA & AIR 1981 SC 212; AND, (II) PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS & ORS. VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CHEMICAL [APPEAL (CIVIL NO.992 OF 2002, DATED 06/04/2002], IN THIS JUDGEMENTS, IT IS CANVASSED T HAT AN ENTITY, LIKE SSNNL, IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN INSTRUMENTA LITY OR AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THUS, IT QUALIFIES TO AN ENTITY SPECIFIED IN SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE BACKGROUND AND PECULIAR FEATURES OF S SNNL, THE SAID CONCERN IS EXECUTING GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS AND IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. ALL KINDS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES REFERRED IN SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT, LIKE RAILWAYS, PORTS, DAMS, BRIDGES, RO ADS, ETC. ARE ALWAYS OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND CANNOT BE OWNED BY PRIV ATE OWNERS. SO HOWEVER, FOR AN EFFICIENT EXECUTION AND HANDLING OF SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, THE GOVERNMENTS FORM A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE (SPV) IN THE FORM OF SEPARATE ENTITY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPAN IES ACT, 1956. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF SUCH LIKE ENTITIE S ARE INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 STILL HAV ING REGARD TO THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, THEY HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS MERE EXTENSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOM PRAKASH RE KHI (SUPRA) AND PRADEEP KUMAR BISWAS & ORS. (SUPRA) ARE FULFILL ED AND SSNNL IS ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 16 - LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A STATUTORY BODY FALLI NG WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IA(4)(I(B) OF THE ACT. 10. SIMILARLY IN THIS CASE, THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS CLEARLY NOT ONLY EXECUTED IN AGREEMENT WITH GSRDC BUT THE GUJARAT GO VERNMENT DIRECTLY WAS INVOLVED IN THE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT. 11. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOP ED, OPERATED AND WAS TO TRANSFER THE PROJECT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE C ONSTITUTIONAL BODY I.E. AN AGENCY AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(E) OF THE GUJARAT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1999 UNDER THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT ACT AND ALSO IN DIRECT AND EXPLICIT AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF GU JARAT GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN LAND AND ALLOWED TO COLLECT TOLL FE E. ASSESSEE COMPANY FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS AS REQUIRE D UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) INCLUDING SECTION 80IA(4)(I)(B) AND HAS DEV ELOPED, OPERATED AND WAS TO TRANSFER THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND THE REFORE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER THE SECTION. 12. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT GSRDC IS AN EXTENDED ARMS OF THE GUJARAT STATE AND IS ENTITLE TO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS ALL THREE APPE ALS IN ITA NOS. 2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014 FOR ASST. YEARS 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.2296, 2304 & 2305/AHD/2014. DCIT VS. M/S. RANJIT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ASST.YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12, RESPECTIVEL Y. - 17 - 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE DISMIS SED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 / 10 /201 7 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/10/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'#$ %$' # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. & ' / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY // (/' )* ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 23/10/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 6 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25/10/2017. 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER .. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER