As regards clause (b) of Section 80IA( 4)(i), the requirement predicated is that the assessee must have entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing, (ii) maintaining and operating or (iii) developing, maintaining and operating a new infrastructure facility. As aforesaid, in the presentcase, the agreement was initially executed between the erstwhile partnership firm and the State Government, but with clear understanding that as and when the partnership firm is converted into a company, the name of the company in the agreement so executed be recorded recognising the change. Notably, the agreement itself mentions that M/s. Chetak Enterprises as party to the agreement was meant to include its successors and assignee. Further, the State Government had granted sanction to the company and the original agreement entered into with the firm automatically stood converted in favour of the assessee-Company, which came into existence on 28.3.2000 being the successor of the erstwhile partnership firm. Thus understood, even the stipulation in clause (b) of Section 80IA( 4)(i) is fulfilled by the assessee-Company. Since these are the only two issues which weighed with the assessing officer to deny deduction to the assessee-Company as claimed under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, the first appellate authority was justified in reversing the view taken by the assessing officer. For the same reason, the ITAT, as well as, the High Court have justly affirmed the view taken by the first appellate authority, holding that the respondent/assessee-Company qualified for the deduction under Section 80IA being an enterprise carrying on the stated business pertaining to infrastructure facility and owned by a Company registered in India on the basis of the agreement executed with the State Government to which the respondent/assessee-Company has succeeded in law after conversion of the partnership firm into a company. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in Giridhar G. Yadalam vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax & Anr. (2015) 17 SCC 664. In the said decision, the Court had delineated the contours regarding permissibility of purposive interpretation of taxing/fiscal statutes, particularly in the context of an exemption. This decision is of no avail to doubt the correctness of the view taken by the High Court vide the impugned judgment, in the facts of the presentcase. In view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.