Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Budget googly likely to stump developers
MUMBAI: A small clarification to the definition of a 'developer' of infrastructure projects, industrial parks and SEZ made in the 2007-08 budget threatens to pull the rug from under the feet of infrastructure companies taking sub-contracting work.
The explanation which redefines a 'developer'from April 1, 2000, says that infrastructure companies taking on sub-contracting work will not be entitled to the ten-year tax benefit under section 80-IA of the Income-Tax Act.
"The legislative intent behind insertion of the explanation appears to deny the tax benefit to a sub-contractor who is entering into an agreement with the main developer of the project," said Pinakin D Desai, a Mumbai-based Chartered Accountant.
The change is likely to impact firms like IVRCL, Nagarjuna Constructions, Patel Engineering, L&T and HCC, which undertake sub-contracted work.
Companies that have not made adequate provisions in past years will take a bigger hit because the change is with retrospective effect from 1999-2000, which means they will have to cough up tax for the past six-seven years.
Under section 80-IA of the I-T Act, a developer who is engaged in development of infrastructure facilities, gets tax relief.
The benefit was introduced to encourage construction of infrastructure such as highways, ports and rail transport systems.
"The purpose of the benefit has been for encouraging private sector participation by way of investment in development of infrastructure sector and not for persons who merely execute civil construction work or any other works contract," says the budget.
Tax experts point out that this explanation to the definition of the 'developer'would have been prompted by several decisions before the tax tribunals, including a recent one on Patel Engineering wherein the company was granted tax benefit even though it was a sub-contractor.
Basically, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that the company should be given the benefits as it contributed to the infrastructure project right from the conception stage to the final execution. The finance ministry thought that it was a loophole that needed to be plugged.
MUMBAI: A small clarification to the definition of a 'developer' of infrastructure projects, industrial parks and SEZ made in the 2007-08 budget threatens to pull the rug from under the feet of infrastructure companies taking sub-contracting work.
The explanation which redefines a 'developer'from April 1, 2000, says that infrastructure companies taking on sub-contracting work will not be entitled to the ten-year tax benefit under section 80-IA of the Income-Tax Act.
"The legislative intent behind insertion of the explanation appears to deny the tax benefit to a sub-contractor who is entering into an agreement with the main developer of the project," said Pinakin D Desai, a Mumbai-based Chartered Accountant.
The change is likely to impact firms like IVRCL, Nagarjuna Constructions, Patel Engineering, L&T and HCC, which undertake sub-contracted work.
Companies that have not made adequate provisions in past years will take a bigger hit because the change is with retrospective effect from 1999-2000, which means they will have to cough up tax for the past six-seven years.
Under section 80-IA of the I-T Act, a developer who is engaged in development of infrastructure facilities, gets tax relief.
The benefit was introduced to encourage construction of infrastructure such as highways, ports and rail transport systems.
"The purpose of the benefit has been for encouraging private sector participation by way of investment in development of infrastructure sector and not for persons who merely execute civil construction work or any other works contract," says the budget.
Tax experts point out that this explanation to the definition of the 'developer'would have been prompted by several decisions before the tax tribunals, including a recent one on Patel Engineering wherein the company was granted tax benefit even though it was a sub-contractor.
Basically, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal took the view that the company should be given the benefits as it contributed to the infrastructure project right from the conception stage to the final execution. The finance ministry thought that it was a loophole that needed to be plugged.