LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-231

DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURES LTD Vs. CHAIRMAN/MEMBER

Decided On August 09, 2016
Devraj Infrastructures Ltd Appellant
V/S
Chairman/Member Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged an order dated 5.11.2014 passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes ("CBDT" for short) on which the petitioner's application for approval and for notification of its industrial part under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008 came to be rejected.

(2.) Brief facts are as under. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in industrial development projects. The petitioner applied on 23.5.2006 for approval for setting up an industrial park at village Piplaj, District Ahmedabad, which would enable the petitioner to claim deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961 ("the Act" for short). This was done under the then prevailing Industrial Park Scheme, 2002. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry informed the petitioner on 5.1.2009 that the petitioner should apply under the new Industrial Park Scheme, 2008. The petitioner accordingly applied for approval under application dated 27.1.2009. According to the petitioner, the petitioner completed the development of the industrial park on 5.9.2010 which was well before the extended last date of 31.3.2011 envisaged in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2008. According to the petitioner as many as 182 units were allocated in the industrial park. Entire industrial development and plotting had been completed. The petitioner was therefore, entitled to deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act.

(3.) Case of the petitioner is that the State Government had also framed a scheme for subsidy for setting up industrial park in the State under resolution dated 10.6.2004 of Industries and Mines department. The petitioner had also availed such subsidy benefits upon completion of the development of the industrial park which was examined by the agency appointed by the GIDC. On the basis of certificate issued by such agency, the State Government had also noted that the petitioner had completed the development of industrial park before 31.3.2011 and on the basis of which the payable subsidy was released in favour of the petitioner.