JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J.-The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter "the Act"): "Whether Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in view of contracts in question that respondent-assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IB(10) of Income-tax Act, 1961?" These appeals of Revenue stem from decisions of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the ITAT") for assessment years ("the AY") 200203; 2004-05 and 2005-06. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the CIT(A)") and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had concurrently ruled against Revenue. Briefly facts are that assessee is engaged in business of building and developing of housing projects. In its return of income, assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) which was declined by Assessing Officer ("the AO") in course of assessment under section 143(3). Assessing Officer observed that assessee-company had been undertaking construction activity since 1996-97. company had been allotted in financial year 2001-02 housing project worth Rs. 12,53,65,692 for constructing housing units measuring 450 square feet each on more than one acre of land at sector 62, Noida, by Indian Railway Welfare Organisation ("IRWO"). housing project worth Rs. 22,82,96,800 had also been allotted for construction of housing units measuring 38 to 42 square metres each on total area of more than one acre of land at sector 14, Dwarka, Phase-II, New Delhi, by Delhi Development Authority ("the DDA"). Both these continued in year under consideration. contract receipts from these works during year under consideration disclosed was Rs. 5,47,85,200. profit from this contract receipt was shown at Rs. 48,40,725. Of this, Rs. 47,03,714 was claimed as tax exempt income by virtue of section 80-IB(10) of Act. Assessing Officer, upon textual analysis of section 80-IB(10) was of view that profit derived only from developing and building housing projects which are approved by local authority is eligible for deductions under section 80-IB. According to him, these conditions had to necessarily be fulfilled: (i) proposal for developing and building housing from assessee's side. (ii) assessee should develop and build housing project. (iii) project should "belong" to assessee. (iv) assessee should have submitted its proposal to local authority and there should be approval of proposal for project from local authority. Assessing Officer observed that in this case, assessee had executed works in respect of housing projects of IRWO and DDA. project belonged to IRWO and DDA. assessee-company did not develop and build any housing project of its own but merely executed contract work awarded to it by principals, i.e., DDA and IRWO. There was consequently no development of building of housing project of assessee. assessee was asked to file copies of its proposals to Noida authority (as it was local authority) as well as DDA and copies of approval granted to it by these local authorities for developing and building housing projects. assessee-company filed letter dated January 10, 2002, of executive engineer SW D-9, DDA accepting tender of assessee; likewise, letter dated July 30, 2001, from Director Technical IRWO, accepting tender for construction of dwelling works was also placed on record. IRWO, by its letter dated September 16, 2005, addressed to Assessing Officer, Ward 17(1) stated that assessee was awarded work for construction of 260 dwelling units including all civil, electrical, plumbing, sewerage, road, pavements, drains, underground water tank, etc., at rates provided in schedule. letter of DDA dated September 17, 2005, to Income-tax Officer, W.17(1), explained that rate contract on which work was awarded was Rs. 22,82,96,800 and work was completed as per specifications given. Assessing Officer declined claim of assessee under section 80-IB(10), by observing that assessee is only contractor and not developer. He also observed that in its support, assessee company had relied upon decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D" order in case of Villayati Ram Mittal Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in I. T. A. Nos. 430 and 5026/Del/2004, dated February 17, 2006, New Delhi. In respect of this decision, Assessing Officer observed that against order of Incometax Appellate Tribunal, dated February 17, 2006, Department had filed appeal before this court. He did not follow decision of Incometax Appellate Tribunal and held that considering facts and circumstances of case, deduction claimed under section 80-IB(10) could not be allowed as assessee was contractor and not developer. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed assessee's claim. Aggrieved, Revenue unavailingly appealed to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. From record, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that assessee-company was mostly engaged in business of building and developing housing projects together with infrastructure. During years under consideration, it had developed and executed two housing projects for DDA and IRWO. profits derived from these projects were claimed as tax exempt under section 80-IB(10). Revenue contended that assessee was mere contractor and not developer and, consequently, in view of amendment introduced retrospectively by insertion of Explanation to section 80-IB(10), assessee's claim for deduction was ineligible. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal agreed that exemption under section 80-IB(10) is only available to assessee who is working as developer and builder and not to undertaking who is merely working as contractor. Thereafter, it proceeded to analyse facts before it, to see whether assessee had worked as contractor or as developer and builder of housing projects. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering contracts which assessee had entered into and had executed, held that: "In instant case before us, project undertaken by assessee- company was undisputedly approved prior to March 3, 2008. There is also no dispute to fact that assessee has commenced construction of housing project after October 1, 1998. copies of approval of projects from local authorities were also duly submitted to Assessing Officer and same are appended in assessee's paper book at pages 1 to 5. However, in view of Explanation introduced with retrospective effect, benefit of exemption under section 80-IB(10) is available only to undertaking developing housing projects as developer and not merely as work contractor... As words'developer' and'contractor' have not been defined in section 80-IB nor in General Clauses Act, we can take dictionary meaning. As per Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (revised edition),'contractor' means'a person or firm that undertakes work on contract, specially connected with building, installation of equipment or transportation of goods'. word'developer' has been defined as'someone who builds on land or improves and increases value of building'. It is crystal clear from above definition that scope of work of developer is wider than contractor in so far as contractor only undertakes works connected with building, installation of equipment or transportation of goods whereas developer is person who builds on land or improves or increases of building by undertaking development of infrastructure and perennial facility of such building. Now, we have to examine nature of work undertaken by assessee in instant case before us, with reference to scope of work allotted to it and undertaken by it. For this purpose, we have gone through agreement executed by assessee and complete scope of work assigned to assessee in terms of agreement and which has actually been undertaken by assessee for performance of work undertaken by it. In terms of agreement so executed by assessee, following is scope of work assigned to assessee: 'Terms and conditions (i) scope of work, as stated in NIT to executed on turnkey basis includes planning, designing, soil testing, earth filling, civil works, including its electrification, services like street lighting, sewerage, water supply drainage, roads, horticulture, landscaping, provision of dual water supply system, rain water harvesting as also construction of community hall, shopping centre, boundary wall, electric sub-station, installation of transformer and equipment in it, laying of HT cables, LT network, service cables, etc., and making units it, laying of HT cables, LT network, service cables, etc., and making units complete and habitable including watch and ward for 3 (three) years from date of recorded completion. This scope of work given in NIT is only indicative and not exhaustive. agency shall be responsible for execution of all items required for completing these houses in all respects to make these units habitable and ready for occupation as well as functioning of all services, making environment fit for habitation without any additional cost, complete as per direction of engineer-in-charge. (ii) facts will be maintained till these are handed over to engineer- in-charge in good conditions are free from all defects. (iii) services will be handed over to various local bodies after its completion as per approved plans, etc., as stated in NIT also. (iv) Before taking up work, layout plans as well as building plans, structural designs, etc., are to be got approved from DDA/competent authority as mentioned in NIT by adhering to be time schedule laid down in NIT. (v) agency will also be responsible for getting fire fighting arrangements, approved from Delhi fire service before execution of water supply scheme.' 22. It is crystal clear from scope of work as enumerated above and which has been undertaken by assessee, that assessee has worked as builder and developer of housing project as whole and for this purpose he has undertaken work of planning, designing of layout plan and architectural/structural drawing of complete housing project as approved by DDA. It has also carried out survey of site, also prepared layout plan within development controls, and has also undertaken detailed soil investigation, prepared complete structural, design and drawing for foundations and drawing for super structure. assessee-company has also undertaken work of planning, designing and execution of internal sanitary system, water supply system, drainage system, including all its fittings and fixtures, testing, etc. As developer, assessee-company has also undertaken necessary arrangements for supply of water through dual pipe system, planning, designing, earth filling, civil works including its electrification, infrastructure services like street lighting, sewerage, water supply, drainage, roads, etc. As developer, assessee-company has also undertaken horticulture, landscaping, provisions for dual water supply, rain water harvesting and also construction of community hall, shopping centre, electric sub-station installation of transformer and equipment in it and also lying of HT cables, etc. Had assessee undertaken housing project as works contract, its scope of work was limited to civil construction work. Whereas as developer, assessee had undertaken work of land scaping, roads, electrification, infrastructure services like street lighting, sewerage, water supply, drainage, horticulture, electric sub-stations, installation of transformer, laying HT cables, etc. 23. detailed scope of work as enumerated above which was undertaken by assessee, it can safely be concluded that on facts of case, assessee has worked as developer and not merely as work contractor. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in action of Assessing Officer for declining claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10) of Income-tax Act. With regard to Assessing Officer's observation that project should be owned by assessee for claim of exemption under section 80- IB(10) is misplaced in so far as there is no condition in section 80-IB that project undertaken by assessee as developer and builder should be owned by assessee. only condition is with regard to fact that only activity of developing and building housing project would be eligible for claim of exemption under section 80-IB. It means that assessee who is developer and builder in substance would only be eligible for deduction and not contractor simpliciter. With regard to learned Departmental representative's contention that since assessee himself has shown as contractor in tax audit report he will not be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80-IB. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that whether assessee is entitled to particular deduction or not will depend on provision of law relating thereto and not on view, which assessee might taken of his rights, nor can existence or absence of entries in his books of account or observation in tax audit report will be of much relevance. Particulars in tax audit report are not restricting status of assessee as to contractors only. Even admission of assessee is held to be not conclusive as held by hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ester Industries Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 260 (Delhi). hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) observed that way in which entries are made by assessee in his books of account is not determinative of question whether assessee has earned any profit or suffered any loss. assessee may, by making entries which are not in conformity with proper principles of accountancy, concealed profit or showed loss and entries made by him cannot be regarded as conclusive one way or other. What is necessary to be considered is true nature of transaction and whether in fact it has resulted in profits or loss to assessee... In view of these judicial pronouncements, mere mention by assessee in TAR will not detract him from legal rights which he is entitled to under section 80- IB of Act. Similarly, since ownership of project is not provided as precondition for claim of deduction under section 80-IB(10), there is no merit in Assessing Officer's allegation for decline of assessee's claim for such plea." Similarly, for assessment years 2002-03 and 2005-06, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal followed its above ruling and allowed assessee's claim under section 80-IB(10). Revenue contends that assessee is only civil contractor and not infrastructure facility or project developer. According to him, it is concerned principal in each contract, i.e., IRWO and DDA, which are infrastructure developers and not assessee. He relied on conclusions of Assessing Officer that for enterprise-to claim deduction under section 80- IA-should own such infrastructure facility, and that enterprise should enter into agreement with Government or local authority for (i) development, or (ii) maintaining and operating, or (iii) developing, maintaining or operating new infrastructure facility; should transfer such infrastructure facility to Government or local authority and that such enterprise should start maintaining infrastructure facility on or after April 1, 1995. According to Revenue, assessee did not fulfil any of those conditions. It was argued that deduction under section 80-IA(4) was provided to infrastructure project developers to supplement State effort to finance and develop such facilities. Exemption under section 80-IA(4) was provided to develop such facilities. Exemption under section 80-IA(4) was provided to encourage private sector participation in infrastructure development. To qualify for exemption, enterprise should carry on business of (i) developing, (ii) maintaining and operating, or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating infrastructure facility. Counsel also compared section 80-IA(4A) introduced by Finance Act, 1995, with provisions of section 80-IA(10), to highlight similarity in scope and content. Counsel, lastly, urged that distinction between works contract and infrastructure development is element of risk which necessarily always is with owner. In absence of that risk element, every contractor can claim to be project developer, which defeats intention of section 80-IA(10). Learned counsel for assessee argued that since factual findings of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal having been rendered final, this court should not interfere under section 260A of Income-tax Act. She also contended that there could be no doubt that both projects which assessee executed were development projects in respect of residential houses and given intention behind section 80-IB(10), i.e., to boost private participation in housing, ownership of lands cannot be added condition when plain terms of provision do not enact such pre-condition. Analysis and conclusions Section 80-IA was introduced by Finance Act, 1995, with effect from April 1, 1996. It exempted enterprise carrying on business of developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. To be eligible for deduction, assessee had to carry out all three activities, i.e., (i) to develop, (ii) to maintain, and (iii) to operate. After amendment by Finance Act, 1999, with effect from April 1, 2000, deduction under section 80-IA(4) became available to any enterprise carrying on business of (i) developing, or (ii) maintaining and operating, or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating any infrastructure facility. Therefore, from assessment year 2000-01, deduction is available if assessee carries on business of any one of said three types of activities, and also when assessee carries on activity of only developing. Section 80-IB reads as follows: "80-IB. Deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings.-(1) Where gross total income of assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business referred to in subsections (3) to (11), (11A) and (11B) (such business being hereinafter referred to as eligible business), there shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing total income of assessee, deduction from such profits and gains of amount equal to such percentage and for such number of assessment years as specified in this section. (2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all following conditions, namely:- (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or reconstruction, of business already in existence: Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of industrial undertaking which is formed as result of re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by assessee of business of any such industrial undertaking as is referred to in section 33B, in circumstances and within period specified in that section. (ii) it is not formed by transfer to new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose; (iii) it manufactures or produces any article or thing, not being any article or thing specified in list in Eleventh Schedule, or operates one or more cold storage plant or plants, in any part of India : Provided that condition in this clause shall, in relation to small scale industrial undertaking or industrial undertaking referred to in sub-section (4) shall apply as if words'not being any article or thing specified in list in Eleventh Schedule' had been omitted. Explanation 1.-For purposes of clause (ii), any machinery or plant which was used outside India by any person other than assessee shall not be regarded as machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, if following conditions are fulfilled, namely:- (a) such machinery or plant was not, at any time previous to date of installation by assessee, used in India; (b) such machinery or plant is imported into India from any country outside India; and (c) no deduction on account of depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under provisions of this Act in computing total income of any person for any period prior to date of installation of machinery or plant by assessee. Explanation 2.-Where in case of industrial undertaking, any machinery or plant or any part thereof previously used for any purpose is transferred to new business and total value of machinery or plant or part so transferred does not exceed twenty per cent of total value of machinery or plant used in business, then, for purposes of clause (ii) of this sub-section, condition specified therein shall be deemed to have been complied with; (iv) in case where industrial undertaking manufactures or produces articles or things, undertaking employs ten or more workers in manufacturing process carried on with aid of power, or employs twenty or more workers in manufacturing process carried on without aid of power." Subsequently, section 80-IB enacts by various provisions specific conditions in respect of different classes of activities, for income to qualify for deduction (as well as its extent). specific activities mentioned are industrial undertakings (section 80-IB(3)); industrial undertakings in industrially backward States specified in Eighth Schedule (section 80-IB(4)); industrial undertakings in industrially backward districts notified by Central Government (section 80-IB(5)); ship business (section 80-IB(6)); hotel (section 80-IB(7)) business of multiplex theatre (section 80-IB(7A)) convention centre business (section 80-IB(7B)); company carrying on scientific research (section 80-IB(8) and (8A)). section then goes on and enacts as follows: "(9) amount of deduction to undertaking shall be hundred per cent. of profits for period of seven consecutive assessment years, including initial assessment year, if such undertaking fulfils any of following, namely:- (i) is located in North-Eastern Region and has begun or begins commercial production of mineral oil before 1st day of April, 1997; (ii) is located in any part of India and has begun or begins commercial production of mineral oil on or after 1st day of April, 1997: Provided that provisions of this clause shall not apply to blocks licensed under contract awarded after 31st day of March, 2011, under New Exploration Licencing Policy announced by Government of India vide Resolution No. O-19018/22/95ONG.DO.VL, dated February 10, 1999, or in pursuance of any law for time being in force or by Central or State Government in any other manner; (This proviso was inserted in by Finance Act, 2011, with effect from April 1, 2012). (iii) is engaged in refining of mineral oil and begins such refining on or after 1st day of October, 1998, but not later than 31st day of March, 2012; (iv) is engaged in commercial production of natural gas in blocks licensed under VIII Round of bidding for award of exploration contracts (hereafter referred to as'NELP-VIII') under New Exploration Licencing Policy announced by Government of India, vide Resolution No. O-19018/22/95-ONG.DO.VL, dated February 10, 1999, and begins commercial production of natural gas on or after 1st day of April, 2009; (v) is engaged in commercial production of natural gas in blocks licensed under IV round of bidding for award of exploration contracts for Coal Bed Methane blocks and begins commercial production of natural gas on or after 1st day of April, 2009. Explanation.-For purposes of claiming deduction under this sub- section, all blocks licensed under single contract, which has been awarded under New Exploration Licencing Policy announced by Government of India vide Resolution No. O19018/22/95-ONG.DO.VL, dated February 10, 1999, or has been awarded in pursuance of any law for time being in force or has or has been awarded in pursuance of any law for time being in force or has been awarded by Central or State Government in any other manner, shall be treated as single'undertaking'. (10) amount of deduction in case of undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before 31st day of March, 2008, by local authority shall be hundred per cent. of profits derived in previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project if,- (a) such undertaking has commenced or commences development and construction of housing project on or after 1st day of October, 1998, and completes such construction,- (i) in case where housing project has been approved by local authority before 1st day of April, 2004, on or before 31st day of March, 2008; (ii) in case where housing project has been, or, is approved by local authority on or after 1st day of April, 2004, but not later than 31st day of March, 2005, within four years from end of financial year in which housing project is approved by local authority; (iii) in case where housing project has been approved by local authority on or after 1st day of April, 2005, within five years from end of financial year in which housing project is approved by local authority. Explanation.-For purposes of this clause,- (i) in case where approval in respect of housing project is obtained more than once, such housing project shall be deemed to have been approved on date on which building plan of such housing project is first approved by local authority; (ii) date of completion of construction of housing project shall be taken to be date on which completion certificate in respect of such housing project is issued by local authority; (b) project is on size of plot of land which has minimum area of one acre: Provided that nothing contained in clause (a) or clause (b) shall apply to housing project carried out in accordance with scheme framed by Central Government or State Government for reconstruction or redevelopment of existing buildings in areas declared to be slum areas under any law for time being in force and such scheme is notified by Board in this behalf; (c) residential unit has maximum built-up area of one thousand square feet where such residential unit is situated within city of Delhi or Mumbai or within twenty-five kilometres from municipal limits of these cities and one thousand and five hundred square feet at any other place; (d) built- up area of shops and other commercial establishments included in housing project does not exceed three per cent of aggregate built-up area of housing project or five thousand square feet, whichever is higher; (e) not more than one residential unit in housing project is allotted to any person not being individual; and (f) in case where residential unit in housing project is allotted to person being individual, no other residential unit in such housing project is allotted to any of following persons, namely:- (i) individual or spouse or minor children of such individual, (ii) Hindu undivided family in which such individual is karta, (iii) any person representing such individual, spouse or minor children of such individual or Hindu undivided family in which such individual is karta. Explanation.-For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any undertaking which executes housing project as works contract awarded by any person (including Central or State Government)." It is plain that textually, section 80-IB(10) deduction can be availed of by undertaking developing and building housing projects approved before March 31, 2008, by local authority. Such undertaking should have embarked on construction of housing project on or after October 1, 1998. 100 per cent. deduction can be availed of profits derived from construction of such housing projects. Explanation to section 80-IB(10), introduced later, clarifies that nothing contained in that provision applies to undertaking that executes housing projects as works contract awarded by any person including Central or State Government. "Development" and construction of housing project is undefined phrase of wide import. Bombay High Court had occasion in CIT v. Vandana Properties [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom) to decide permissibility of deduction in case where assessee had to develop and construct block of residential flats. court held that (page 43): "... expression'housing project' in common parlance would mean constructing building or group of buildings consisting of several residential units. In fact, Explanation section 80-IB(10) supports contention of assessee that approval granted to building plan constitutes approval granted to housing project. Therefore, it is clear that construction of even one building with several residential units of size not exceeding 1000 square feet ('E' building in present case) would constitute a'housing project' under section 80-IB(10) of Act." court also dealt with submission of size of project (page 45): "25. question, therefore, to be considered is, whether Revenue is justified in reading expression'plot of land' in section 80-IB(10)(b) as'vacant plot of land'? 26. object of section 80-IB(10) in granting deduction equal to one hundred per cent. of profits of undertaking arising from developing and constructing housing project is with view to boost stock of houses for lower and middle income groups subject to fulfilling specified conditions. fact that maximum size of residential unit in housing project situated within city of Mumbai and Delhi is restricted to 1000 square feet clearly shows that intention of Legislature is to make available large number of medium size residential units for benefit of common man. However, in absence of defining expression'housing project' and in absence of specifying size or number of housing projects required to be constructed on plot of land having minimum area of one acre, even one housing project containing multiple residential units of size not exceeding 1000 square feet constructed on plot of land having minimum area of one acre would be eligible for section 80-IB(10) deduction. If construction of section 80-IB(10) put forth by Revenue is accepted, it would mean that if on vacant plot of land, one housing project fulfilling all conditions is undertaken, then deduction would be available to that housing project and if thereafter several other housing projects are undertaken on very same plot of land, deduction would not be available to those housing projects as plot ceases to be vacant plot after construction of first housing project. Such construction if accepted would defeat object with which section 80-IB(10) was enacted. Moreover, plain reading of section 80-IB(10) does not even remotely suggest that plot of land having minimum area of one acre must be vacant. said section allows deduction to housing project (subject to fulfilling all other conditions) constructed on plot of land having minimum area of one acre and it is immaterial as to whether any other housing projects are existing on said plot of land or not. In these circumstances, construing provisions of section 80-IB(10) by adding words to statute is wholly unwarranted and such construction which defeats object with which section was enacted must be rejected." Likewise, in CIT v. G. R. Developers [2013] 353 ITR 1 (Karn) Karnataka High Court had occasion to consider whether provision which required project approval before 2005 applied for older projects and whether if few commercial units were built in terms of local regulations in otherwise residential complex, section 80-IB(10) became inapplicable. court held it not to be so. Similarly, Explanation though clarificatory, cannot be held to be retrospective. In this context, it is noticed that Supreme Court in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 83 (SC); [2007] 9 SCC 665 held that: "... if statute does contain statement to effect that amendment is clarificatory or declaratory, that is not end of matter. court has to analyse nature of amendment to come to conclusion whether it is in reality clarificatory or declaratory provision. Therefore, date from which amendment is made operative does not conclusively decide question. court has to examine scheme of statute prior to amendment and subsequent to amendment to determine whether amendment is clarificatory or substantive." In this case, Explanation states that benefit of deduction would not apply to someone who "executes housing project as works contract awarded by any person" applies from date that Explanation was enacted. In facts of this case, it is evident that assessee was awarded both contracts as turnkey projects. conceptualisation, overall planning and execution, oversight of entire execution, deployment of personnel at various stages, etc., was with assessee. In almost similar circumstances, Gujarat High Court in Katira Construction Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 352 ITR 513 (Guj) held assessee to have engaged in development and construction of housing project (page 542): "The development of land was to be done entirely by assessee by constructing residential units thereon as per plans approved by local authority. It was specified that assessee would bring in technical knowledge and skill required for execution of such project. assessee had to pay fees to architects and engineers. Additionally, assessee was also authorised to appoint any other architect or engineer, legal adviser and other professionals. He would appoint sub-contractor or labour contractor for execution of work... land owners agreed to give necessary signatures, agreements, and even power of attorney to facilitate work of developer. In short, assessee had undertaken entire task of development, construction and sale of housing units to be located on land belonging to original land owners." Since assessee developed infrastructure facility/project and was not required to maintain or operate, it was entitled to cost, plus margin of income or profit; not to expect this treatment would render one who develops infrastructure facility project, unable to realise its cost. If infrastructure facility is, after its development, transferred to Government, naturally cost would be paid by Government. Therefore, mere circumstance that Indian Railways or DDA paid for development of housing project carried out by assessee, did not mean that assessee did not develop residential complex. If Revenue's interpretation is accepted, no enterprise, carrying on business of only developing infrastructure facility, would be entitled to deduction under section 80-IB(10). conclusions of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this context were rendered after detailed analysis of facts and contracts entered into by assessee with IRWO and DDA. narrow ground on which Assessing Officer concluded that projects were "owned" by IRWO or DDA and that assessee was only works contracts, was unwarranted. In view of above conclusions, Revenue's appeals fail; question of law framed is answered in affirmative, in assessee's favour; appeals are consequently dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. VRM India Ltd