Taxability of Consortium Members in Large Infrastructure Projects-CBDT Clarification

Taxability of Consortium Members in Large Infrastructure Projects-CBDT Clarification

Circular No. 07/2016

Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central board of  Direct Taxes

 North Block, New Delhi, the 7^th of March, 2016

Subject: Clarification regarding taxability of consortium members-reg.-

A  Consortium of contractors is often formed to implement large infrastructure projects, particularly in Engineering, Procurement and Construction (‘EPC’)  Contracts and Turnkey Projects.  The tax authorities,  in many cases  have taken a position that such a consortium constitutes an Association of persons (‘AOP’) i.e.  a separate entity for charging tax.  The claim of tax payers,  on the other hand, is contrary  to this view. This  has led to tax disputes particularly  in those cases where each member of the consortium, although jointly and severally  liable to the contractee, has a clear distinction  and role in scope of work, responsibilities and liabilities of the consortium members.

2. The term AOP has not been specifically defined in the Income tax- Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The issue as to what would constitute an AOP was considered by the Apex Court in some cases. Although certain guidelines were prescribed in this regard , the Court opined that there is no formula of universal application so as to conclusively decide the existence  of an AOP and it would rather depend upon the particular facts and circumstances  of a case. In the specific context  of the EPC  contracts/Turnkey projects, there are several contrary  ruling of various Courts on what constitutes an AOP.

3. The matter has been examined. With a view to avoid tax-disputes and to have consistency in approach while handling these cases, the board has decided that a consortium arrangement for executing EPC/Turnkey contracts which has the following attributes may not be treated as an AOP:

a. each member is independently responsible  for executing its part of work  through its own  resources  and also bear the risk of its scope of work i.e. there is a clear demarcation in  the  work and costs  between the consortium members and each member incurs expenditure only in its specified area of work.

b. each member earns profit or incurs losses, based on performance of the contract falling strictly within its scope of work. However, consortium members may share contract price at gross level only to facilitate convenience in billing;

c. the men and materials used for any area of work are under the risk and control of respective consortium members;

d. the control and management of the consortium is not unified and common management is only for the enter –se coordination between the consortium members for administrative convenience;

4. There may be other additional factors also which may justify that consortium is not an AOP and the same shall depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case, which need to be taken in to consideration while taking a view in the matter .

5. It is further clarified that this Circular shall not be applicable in cases where all or some of the members of the consortium are Associated Enterprises within the meaning of section 92A of tha Act. In such cases, the assessing office will decide whether an AOP is formed or not keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act and judicial jurisprudence on this issue .

6. The above may be brought to the notice of all for necessary compliance.

7. Hindi version to follow.

(Rohit Garg)

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India

(F.No.225/2/2016/ITA.II)

• Empanelment of ICAI Exam observer for January 2027 Examinations. Last date: 20.11.2026
• No arrest under GST- Major decision of 57th Meeting of GST Council held on 8th October 2026
• Later SC ruling cannot render an act done in compliance of a court order a statutory default
• Interest payment on mobilisation advance to NHAI not liable to TDS u/s 194A
• Typographical error in turnover accepted during assessment not a mistake apparent from record