RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,AHMEDNAGAR V. ITO, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 2363/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajdeep Infrastructure, a partnership firm engaged in developing, maintaining, and operating infrastructure facilities like foot over bridges and road signages on a BOT basis with the Indore Municipal Corporation. The firm claimed a deduction of Rs.3,08,54,662 under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2015-16, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer based on precedents from earlier years. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeals before the Tribunal. The main legal contention revolves around whether the activities undertaken by the assessee qualify as 'infrastructure facilities' under the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848855 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Selvel Advertising Pvt Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SARVESH KANDELWAL
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2363, 2364 & 2365/PUN/2025 Assessment years : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2015-16 Rajdeep Infrastructure Rajdeep House, Near Savedi Jakat Naka, Savedi, Ahmednagar – 414003 Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar PAN: AAHFR2945Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal Department by : Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT Date of hearing : 26-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 27-03-2026 O R D E R PER BENCH: The above 3 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to the respective assessment years as mentioned above. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. First we take up ITA No.2363/PUN/2025 for assessment year 2017-18 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development, maintenance and operation of infrastructure facility like foot over bridges and road signages on BOT basis under Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 an agreement with Indore Municipal Corporation. It filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 31.10.2017 declaring total income at Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.3,08,54,662/- u/s 80(IA)(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny as per norms of CBDT. The Assessing Officer accordingly issued statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Thereafter, he issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire in response to which the assessee filed its submissions from time to time. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act in relation to its income derived from aforementioned business activities of developing, maintaining and operating an infrastructure facility. He observed that a similar claim of 100% deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act was made in the preceding assessment years including the assessment year 2013-14 and the claim of the assessee was rejected. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the deduction under section 801A(4) of the Act should not be disallowed for this assessment year. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 where such claim has been rejected, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,08,54,660/-. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 4. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act, it be held that the activity of developing, operating and maintaining of road signages and foot-over bridges amounts to development of roads and bridges, respectively and hence the assessee was engaged in the development of infrastructure facility as stated in section 80I(A) of the Act. Accordingly claim of Rs.3,08,54,662/- made by the assessee company u/s 80I(A) of the Act be allowed. Just and proper relief be granted to the appellant. 2. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, or raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Selvel Advertising Pvt Ltd vide ITA No.49 of 2010 order dated 22.04.2010, copy of which is placed at pages 148 to 150 of the paper book submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act holding that the automatic signal and pedestrian footbridge would constitute infrastructure facility as contemplated in clause (a) of Explanation below sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Act. He accordingly submitted that although the issue has been decided by the Tribunal against the assessee and the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the order of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is dated 22.04.2010 and it relates to an order passed against the order u/s 263 of the Act. Further, the order of the Tribunal has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the matter is sub judice, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC being in accordance with law should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case following his Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 order for the preceding assessment years which has been upheld by the Tribunal, disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,08,54,660/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Admittedly, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years has already decided the issue and rejected the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act holding that the income on account of execution of road signages do not fall within the ambit of infrastructure facility as defined in Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80-IA of the Act and therefore, the assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Although the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court against the order of the Tribunal, however, the same was neither been stayed nor any decision has been taken by the Hon’ble High Court. Under these circumstances, when the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier years and the assessee has challenged the same before the Hon’ble High Court which is pending and there is no stay granted against the order of the Tribunal by the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years, we hold that the assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 9. Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in ITA Nos.2364 & 2365/PUN/2025. In view of our observations given above, we dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee in these two appeals also. 10. In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 27th March, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Digitally signed by Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Date: 2026.03.27 13:28:12 +05'30' 9 ITA Nos.2363 to 2365/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 26.03.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 27.03.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "