AKIL KURESHI, J.

1. These petitions arise out of common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of this judgment, facts stated in Special Civil Application No.11781 of 2009 may be adopted.

2. Petitioner has challenged the vires of explanation inserted in Sub-Section (4) of Section 80IA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) by Finance Act No. 2 of 2009. Sub-Section (4) of Section 80IA of the Act, as is well known, provides for certain deduction of income from the eligible business and primarily pertains to infrastructure development. By adding the impugned explanation, the Legislature provided that that nothing contained in the Section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in Sub-Section (4) which is in the nature of a works contract awarded by any person and executed by an undertaking 'or enterprise. This explanation is added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000. It is this amendment which has given rise to the present controversy.

3. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged in the business of developing infrastructure. Till introduction of the impugned amendment, deductions