Tax Guru

Contractor not eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IA

Nov 24, 2009 Income Tax Case Laws

SUMMARY OF CASE LAW

The use of word “developing’ in juxtaposition to infrastructure facility in section 80-1A(4) indicates that what is eligible for deduction under this sub-section is the profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure facility and not something de hors it; so in order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a particular part of it; it may be possible that some part of development work is assigned by the developer to some contractor for doing it on his behalf; that will not put the doer of such work into the shoes of a developer; therefore, a mere contractor cannot be conferred with the benefit as provided in section 80-IA.

CASE LAW DETAILS

Decided by: ITAT MUMBAI, LARGER BENCH, MUMBAI,   In The case of: B. T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT,  Appeal No.: ITA Nos. 1408 & 1409/PN/2003,  Decided on: October 26, 2009

RELEVANT PARAGRAPH

33. On the analysis of the provisions of section 80-IA, it is noticed that sub-section (1) provides that deduction shall be allowed in computing the total income of an assessee from the profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking or an enterprise referred to in subsection (4). It implies that the deduction is available to the assessee in respect of profits and gains from the eligible business. Thus it is not the entire income of the assessee which qualifies for deduction under this section but only that part of it which result from the eligible business. It is so for the reason that albeit the benefit is to be availed by the assessee, but it applies only to the profits and gains of the eligible enterprise and not to the assessee owning such enterprise. Sub-section (2) states that the deduction under sub-section (1) may be claimed by the assessee for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which the enterprise develops and begins to operate any infrastructure facility. On a careful perusal of the language of this sub-section two points emerge. First the word “and” has been used between ‘develops’ and “begins to operate’. The use of the word “and” clearly brings out that both the conditions need to be cumulatively satisfied by the eligible business. It indicates that the infrastructure facility should not only be developed but also operated by the assessee so as to make its income qualify for deduction. The second condition which comes to light is the period often years out of first fifteen years has to commence when the enterprise develops and begins to operate any infrastructure facility. From here it can be noticed that the eligibility of deduction cannot be prior to the development and operation of the infrastructure facility. Unless the assessee really develops and begins to operate infrastructure facility there is no question of granting any deduction for the reason that the period of deduction cannot commence unless the enterprise develops and begins to operate the infrastructure facility. Adverting to the facts of the instant case we find that the assessee is only a civil contractor who has been assigned the job of civil construction such as constructing the tunnel etc. Its duty ends when the tunnel etc. is constructed according to the specifications given by the Government / Statutory Bodies. The infrastructure facility as such will begin to operate only after the assessee has done his job and the other necessary works in connection with the development of infrastructure facility are completed. Since the assessee is out of the sight much prior to the actual operation of the infrastructure facility, the mandate prescribed by sub-section (2) is failing in this case. Sub-section (3) which concerns with the conditions to be satisfied by an industrial undertaking for general and distribution of power, is obviously not applicable to the instant case.

34. Sub-section (1) speaks about the business of an enterprise referred to in sub-section (4). In so far as the business of the eligible infrastructure facility is concerned, clause (i) of sub-section (4) is applicable here. In order to be eligible for deduction the enterprise must fulfill all the conditions as laid down in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). As per the language of this clause, primarily it should be an enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing, (ii) maintaining and operating or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. So the enterprise should carry on the business of (i), (ii) or (iii) and fulfill all the conditions enshrined in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of this clause. The learned Counsel for the assessee has made out a case that the benefit of this section is available to an enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) maintaining and operating or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. According to him there is a word “or” between (i) and (ii) which clearly suggests that the benefit of deduction is available even to a developer who does not maintain and operate the infrastructure facility. He submitted that his case is covered in (i) preceded by the word “or’ which is sufficient compliance since the developer simplicter of the infrastructure facility is also eligible for deduction. He further explained that the work done by the assessee is of developing the infrastructure facility as without the construction of tunnels, the functioning of the infrastructure facility is impossible. It was stated by him that the infrastructure facility was one larger job, which could be accomplished by several small jobs. As the civil construction is an important segment of the big whole, in his opinion, any person executing even a part of the jobs concerning the infrastructure facility, shall be eligible for deduction.

35. It appears that the Id. AR has taken assistance from the language of this section reading the word “or” between (i) and (ii) from the provisions as applicable to assessment year 2002-2003 onwards, which are obviously not relevant for our purpose. We are dealing with assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 and the punctuation sign of coma is used between (i) and (ii) and not the word “or” as suggested by the learned A.R. It shows that the benefit of deduction in these years is available not to the developer of the infrastructure facility until he maintains and operates it as well. The same condition can be found in sub-section (2) also as discussed above. In view of the fact that coma has been used between (i) and (ii) and the word “or” has been used only between (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (4)(i), it shows that there are two types of eligible assessees for deduction under this section in the years under consideration. First are those who develop the infrastructure facility and after some time transfer it to someone else [on or after 1.4.1999 as per proviso below sub-clause (c) to sub-section (4)(i)] to operate on their behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Central/State Government or local/statutory authority. Second category comprises of those who develop the infrastructure facility and also themselves operate and maintain the same. The use of punctuation sign coma between clauses (i) and (ii) cannot be substituted with the word “or” as used between (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (4)(i). Each and every word or sign of punctuation used by the legislature in the language of section carries its own meaning and depicts the intention of the legislature. It is not as if coma has been accidentally inserted between (i) and (ii) as against the intention of using the word “or”, as suggested by the learned A.R. Wherever the legislature intends to provide for choosing one of the alternatives it uses the word “or” between such options but where the intention is to make operative all the given propositions punctuation sign coma or/and the conjunction “and” is used between or amongst the relevant propositions. A useful reference can be made to the language of fifth proviso to section 80HHC which uses the word “or” between clauses (a) and (b) and then between various components of these clauses. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mehta Manufacturer Vs. ITO [(2009) 120 TTJ (Mum) 234] had an occasion to interpret the fifth proviso and it held that loss as per computation under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC is required to be set off against the amount which bears to 90% of the amount specifically categorized either under clause (a) or under clause (b) of the fifth proviso the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover. It was also held that the word “or” used between clauses (a) and (b) of the fifth proviso cannot be read as “and”. Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the word “or” cannot be read between (i) and (ii) when the punctuation sign of coma has been used in the language of the provision.

36. Here it is important to mention that the legislature inserted the word `or’ between (i) and (ii) w.e.f. 1.4.2002, which is applicable to A.Y. 2002-03. So w.e.f. the A.Y. 2002-03, not only the enterprise (i) developing, (ii) operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility shall be entitled to deduction, but also the enterprise which is only (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility. From such year onwards the enterprise which only develops the infrastructure facility and thereafter transfers it to someone else for operating and maintaining on behalf of transferee shall also be covered for the purposes of granting benefit. The difference in the situation between A.Y. 2002-03 onwards and prior two years is that whereas the operation and maintenance of the infrastructure facility on behalf of the enterprise developing is necessary in the former period, but in the later period the operation and maintenance shall be on behalf of the transferee enterprise itself. Since in the years in question the transfer of the enterprise for operation and maintenance has necessarily to be on behalf on the enterprise developing the infrastructure facility, and for the time being assuming without admitting the contention of the Id. AR that the assessee is developer of infrastructure facility, it does not satisfy the other condition of its transfer for operating and maintaining on its behalf for the obvious reason that there is no transfer at all of any infrastructure facility from the assessee, much less for operating and maintaining on its behalf.

37. Be that as it may it remains to be examined as to whether the assessee can be called as “developer* within the meaning of section 80-IA(4). The learned Counsel submitted that the work done by the assessee made it a developer entitled to deduction. Shri Vijay Mehta, the learned Counsel for the intervener contended that the “works contract” has not been defined in the context of section 80-IA and hence in the absence of assignment of any definition by the statute, its meaning should be understood in the common parlance. According to him a developer is a person who develops the facility and such person may or may not be a contractor. On the other hand a contractor is stated to be a legal term whose rights and duties vis-a-vis contractee are determined by way of legal document called the contract. He cited an example that if a contract to construct a highway from Mumbai to Delhi is given to a person he is contractor as well as developer. As against that a person who has been given a contract for painting or beautification is merely a contractor but not a developer. According to him while developing a project, a developer has to make technological inputs, entrepreneurial inputs etc. Besides, there is financial involvement in terms of deployment of man and machine as well as bank guarantees. He went on to explain that the developer undertakes the risk and reward of the project and is accountable to the authorities for the development work carried out by him. In his opinion the assessee in the present case cannot be characterized anything other than a developer.

38. In the oppugnation, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the construction is a minor part of the development. According to him, development includes the works to be done relating to the planning, designing, engineering and financing etc. of the project. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HAL Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [55 STC 327] in which it has been observed that in a contract for work, the person producing has no property in the thing produced as a whole, even if part or whole of the material used by him may have been his property earlier. He also relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Summit Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Vs. Anandam Vishwanathan [(1989) 1 SCC 613] in which it was held that the nature of contract can be found only when the intention of parties are found out. The fact that in the execution of the works contract some material are used and the property in the goods so used passes to the other party, the contractor undertaking the work will not necessarily be deemed, on that account, to sell the material. It was, therefore, argued that the developer is a person who brings in additional resources by way of investment and technical expertise for developing the infrastructure facilities. Since the assessee had simply done a part of work of civil construction relating to the infrastructure facility, he stated that it is not eligible for deduction.

39. We find it as an undisputed position that the words “developer’ and “contractor* have not been defined in or for the purposes of section 80-IA. The primary question which arises is that how to find out the meaning of a word or an expression which is not defined in the Act. It is a settled legal position that ordinarily the meaning or definition of a word used in one statute cannot per se be imported into another as has been held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. R.C.Jain [(1981) 2 SCC 308]. Therefore, the meaning of the words developer and contractor, as put forth before us by the rival parties from other legislations, be they State or Central enactments, cannot be automatically applied in the present context. In order to ascertain the meaning of a word not defined in the Act, a useful reference can be made to the General Clauses Act, 1897. If a particular word is not defined in the relevant statute but has been defined in the General Clauses Act, such definition throws ample light for guidance and adoption in the former enactment. According to section 3 of the General Clauses Act the definitions given in this Act shall have applicability in all the Central Acts unless a contrary definition is provided of a particular word or expression. On scanning section 3 of the General Clauses Act we observe that neither the word “contractor’ nor “developer’ has been defined therein. Thus the General Clauses Act is also of no assistance in this regard. Going ahead, when these words are neither defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961 nor in the General Clauses Act, the next question is that where from to find the meaning of such words. There is no need to wander here and there in search of answer which has been aptly given by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdulgafar A.Nadiadwala Vs. ACIT and Ors. [(2004) 267 ITR 488 (Bom.)] wherein the Hon’ble High Court was looking into the meaning of the words “goods’ and “merchandise’ , which are not defined u/s. 80HHC in the context of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble High Court held that : “it is well settled that in the absence of there being anything contrary to the context, the language of a statute should be interpreted according to the plain dictionary meaning of the terms used therein”. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT Vs. Officer-In-Charge (Court of Wards), Baigah [(1976) 105 ITR 133 (SC)] in which it was held that the ordinary dictionary meaning of a word cannot be disregarded.

40. Coming back to our point of ascertaining the meaning of the words `contractor’ as well as ‘developer’, which have neither been defined in the Act nor in the General Clauses Act, we fall upon Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary to find out their meaning. According to this dictionary “developer” is a person or company that designs and creates new products, whereas “contractor” is a person or a company that has a contract to do work or provides services or goods to another. The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the word “contractor” as : “A person who enters into a contract or agreement. Now chiefly spec, a person or firm that undertakes work by contract, esp. for building to specified plans”. In the light of the meaning ascribed to these words by the dictionaries it is observed that the developer is a person who designs and creates new products. He is the one who conceives the project. He may execute the entire project himself or assign some parts of it to others. On the contrary the contractor is the one who is assigned a particular job to be accomplished on the behalf of the developer. His duty is to translate such design into reality. There may, in certain circumstances, be overlapping in the work of developer and contractor, but the line of demarcation between the two is thick and unreachable. When the person acting as developer, who designs the project, also executes the construction work, he works in the capacity of contractor too. But when he assigns the job of construction to someone else, he remains the developer simpliciter, whereas the person to whom the job of construction is assigned, becomes the contractor. The role of developer is much larger than that of the contractor. It is no doubt true that in certain circumstances a developer may also do the work of a contractor but a mere contractor per se can never be called as a developer, who undertakes to do work according to the pre-decided plan.

41. Further it is relevant to note that the word “developing” used in sub-section (4) is with reference to “infrastructure facility”. When we further peruse the meaning of the word “infrastructure facility” as per Explanation, it is found to have been defined exhaustively by referring to a road project, airport, port etc, a highway project, a water supply project and irrigation project etc. Therefore the use of word “developing” in juxtaposition to infrastructure facility indicates that what is eligible for deduction under this sub-section is the profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure facility and not something de hors it. So in order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a particular part of it, as has been contended by the Id. AR. It may be possible that some part of development work is assigned by the developer to some contractor for doing it on his behalf. That will not put the doer of such work into the shoes of a developer.

42. The paper book filed by the assessee contains the details of three projects viz. Koyna Hydro Electric Project, Bhima Sina Link Canal Tunnel and Jihe Kathapur Lift Irrigation Project. Page 20 onwards is a copy of the Tripartite agreement in relation to Koyna Hydro Electric Project amongst the assessee, M/s Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and the Government of Maharashtra. As per this agreement, M/s Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. is a contractor whereas the assessee has been indicated as a sub-contractor. The contractor has been assigned some work by the Government of Maharashtra in connection with the Koyna Hydro Electric Project. It is not as if the assessee is developing the entire project. It has been handed over only a particular job of civil work as is apparent from page 1 of the paper book which is a letter from M/s Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., to the Executive Engineer, Koyna Hydro Electric Project. As regards Bhima Sina Link Canal Tunnel project, a copy of the joint venture agreement is placed at page 45 onwards of the paper book. As per this agreement the assessee submitted its bid for the work of constructing Bhima Sina Link Canal Tunnel and approaches at Ch. 1/500 to 22/500 at Tal; Madha District Solapur, which was approved. For this unit the assessee along with one M/s Swapnali Construction entered into agreement with the ‘Owner’ viz., Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation for executing the above stated work. In this joint venture agreement also Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation has been referred to as the “Owner’ and the assessee as a Contractor. Copy of the MoU for joint venture agreement in respect of the third agreement, that is, Jihe Kathapur Lift Irrigation Project is available at pages 72 onwards of the paper book. As per this agreement also Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation has been referred to as “the owner” whereas the assessee has been described as “Joint venture’ for execution of the works referred to in this contract. Thus it is noted from the material on record that the assessee was given civil construction work to be done strictly according to the plan laid down by the State Government / Statutory Authorities. Such authorities have been referred to as ‘the owner’ and the assessee as the “joint venture’ for executing the contract. The sphere of work assigned to the assessee is simply to do the specified job of civil construction. It is not involved in the planning and development of the infrastructure facility as a whole. It is bound to carry out the construction work as per the requirements of State Governments) /statutory bodies and cannot deviate even an inch from the plan assigned to it. How and under which circumstances can it be called as Developer’ is anybody’s guess. In the light of the foregoing discussion it is clear that the assessee is a mere contractor and not developer. We thus agree with the view expressed by the Chennai bench of the tribunal in ACIT VS. Indwell Linings (?) Ltd. (2009) 122 TTJ (Chenai) 137 and respectfully differ with the order passed by the Murnbai bench of the tribunal in Patel Engineering Ltd. VS. DCIT (2005) 94 ITD 411(Mumbai).

43. Therefore, the claim of the assessee fails on both the counts, viz, it is neither a developer nor it fits into any of the two categories of the eligible businesses of (i) developing, (ii) maintaining and operating infrastructure facility on one hand or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility on the other.

44. When we examine the mandate of clause (i) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA it transpires that the eligible enterprise must fulfill ALL the conditions set out in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 80-IA(4)(i).

45. The first condition as per sub-clause (a) is that “it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of companies”. No doubt the assessee is a company registered in India but at least in one out of the three projects, the details of which have been submitted in the paper book, the other joint venture partner is a non-corporate assessee. Another significant word used here is “owned”, which indicates that the infrastructure facility should be owned by a company so as to be entitled to deduction under this section. As noted supra from the copies of agreement entered into by the assessee with the State Government / Statutory Authorities, it is amply clear that only the concerned authority, and not the assessee, has been described as ‘owner’ in unambiguous words. In these agreements the assessee has been referred to as a joint venture for carrying out the specified work only. It is axiomatic that the doing of work assigned to assessee, religiously in accordance with the given specifications subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement and control of the authority, cannot put it in the capacity of owner. Even if the assessee had to make some investment, for the time being, in the shape of purchase of some raw material or incurring of labour etc., which is recouped from time to time by furnishing bills, the assessee cannot claim itself as owner of the work done by it. The assessee is a mere contractor whose tender has been accepted by the competent authorities for carrying out the specified job, the property in respect of which vests with such Government or Local Authority. It is, therefore, clear that since the work done by the assessee is not owned by it, it does not satisfy sub-clause (a) of section 80-IA(4)(i).

46. Now we proceed to sub-clause (b) as per which it has entered into an agreement with the Government or Local Authority for (i) developing, (ii) maintaining and operating and (iii) developing, maintaining and operating new infrastructure facility SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL AUTHORITY OR SUCH OTHER AUTHORITY WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT. When we test the conditions set out in sub-clause (b) on the present factual scenario it emerges that the assessee is miserably failing. The assessee merely entered into agreement with State Government or Local Authorities for doing the specified works contract. Neither the assessee can be called as developer of the new infrastructure facility nor there is any stipulation in the agreement by which the infrastructure facility shall be transferred to the Government, Local Authorities or such other Statutory Bodies within the period stipulated in the agreement. A thing can be transferred only when a person holds some ownership or possessory rights over it. In the present context the point of transferring the infrastructure facility to the State Government etc. will arrive only when such infrastructure facility is owned by someone. Since the assessee did not own any area built by it on behalf of the Government or Local authorities, there is no question of transferring such construction much less the infrastructure facility itself. The Id. AR has not invited our attention towards any condition in these agreements, by which the assessee shall transfer the infrastructure facility to the State Government or Local Authorities as the case may be. It cannot, naturally, be so for the reason that the assessee is not the owner of any infrastructure facility which could be transferred to State Government or Local Authorities. Thus it transpires that sub-clause (b) is also not satisfied in the instant case.

47. Now we turn to sub-clause (c) as per which it has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st day of April, 1995. A proviso attached to sub-clause (c) as per which where an infrastructure facility is transferred on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 by an enterprise which developed such infrastructure facility being the transferor enterprise to another enterprise being the transferee enterprise for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Government or Statutory Body etc., the provisions of this section shall apply to the transferee enterprise as if it were the enterprise to which this clause applies and deduction would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction if the transfer had not taken place. In the hitherto section 80-IA, sub-section (4A) considered the cases for allowing the deduction in respect of enterprise carrying on the business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility only. In the new section, there is sub-section (4)(i) and sub-clause (b) by which the enterprises developing, maintaining and operating infrastructure facility have been divided into two clauses i.e. (i) developing, (ii) maintaining and operating and (iii) developing, maintaining and operating. The above referred proviso has also been simultaneously added to sub-clause (c) so as to prescribe the treatment to be given when there is transfer of enterprise by the transferor to the transferee for operating and maintaining of enterprise ON ITS BEHALF. This point has been discussed at length above while considering clause (i) of sub-section (4). It is therefore, lucid that in the years in question the deduction is available to the one who, in fact, operates the enterprise whether as an owner in his own capacity or for and on behalf of the developer.

48. Here it is important to notice that the transfer of infrastructure facility from one person to another should be only for the purpose of operating and maintaining it on its behalf and that too in accordance with the agreement with Central/State Government or Local Authority or Statutory Body etc. We find that the assessee has failed to satisfy the condition as enshrined in sub-clause (c) as it had neither started operating and mamtoining the infrastructure facility nor it transferred anything to someone else for operating on its behalf and still further there is no question of concurrence of the concerned authority as there is no such clause in any of the agreements with them. Rather there can not be any question of such operation or maintenance since the infrastructure facility is not at all owned by the assessee.

49. It is appropriate to note that the word “it” used in the beginning of sub-clauses (a) to (c) has been used interchangeably to represent the enterprise carrying on the eligible business as well as the assessee. Whereas the word “it” in sub-clauses (a) and (c) refers to the enterprise, the same word used in sub-clause (b) refers to the assessee.

50. From the foregoing discussion it is manifest that the assessee failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down in clause (i) read with those mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA. It cannot be conferred with the benefit as provided in section 80-IA. It is merely doing work of civil construction, which is a part of the entire infrastructure project and not the whole of it. The claim made on behalf of the assessee that on account of its association with the infrastructure facility in any manner, even though partly, the eligibility for deduction is earned, is untenable. If this contention, that since it is engaged in some way or the other with the development of infrastructure facility and hence it should be allowed deduction u/s. 80-IA to that extent, is brought to the logical conclusion then even the supplier of iron or bricks will also claim deduction to the extent of income from the such supply for infrastructure. In the same breath the labour contractor to the civil contractor or directly to the authority developing the infrastructure facility would also claim that they are enterprise eligible for deduction under this section and the same be allowed to the extent of their income derived from such supply of labour. Going further even the supplier of machinery to the Government for the setting up of the infrastructure facility will also claim that he is also an enterprise eligible for the benefit u/s. 80-IA. Going still further even the sub-contractor of the contractor shall also stand included in the beneficiaries of the deduction, which is obviously not the intention of the legislature as borne out from the clear language of section itself and clarified with the help of various circulars such as Circular No. 717 dt. 14.8.1995, No. 14 of 2001, Nos. 3 of 2006 and 2008. It is, therefore, clear that the intention of the legislature is not to provide deduction under this section to anyone except the person or authority which is directly engaged in developing, maintaining and operating the infrastructure facility. In order to be eligible for the benefit of this deduction it should be a complete development of the infrastructure facility and not a part of it. In the present case the infrastructure facilities in respect of which the assessee is claiming deduction, are being set up by the State Governments) or local/statutory authorities and the assessee is simply engaged in some construction work, thereby contributing partly in the attainment of the object of developing the infrastructure facility. Under such circumstances it does not qualify for deduction within the frame work of sub-section (4)(i) itself.

Tags: belgaum, benefit, case law, construction pvt, eligible business, fifteen years, industrial undertaking, infrastructure facility, juxtaposition, provisions, pvt ltd, relevant paragraph, subsection