9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 975 - AT - Income TaxEntitlement to deduction under section 80-IA - Decision relied by CIT(A) to allow the claim is being challenged in High Court - Held that - Since the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while allowing the claim of deduction under section 80-IA(4) has followed the decision of the Tribunal, therefore, merely because the Revenue has challenged the decision of the Tribunal before the hon ble High Court, the same in our opinion cannot be a ground to take a contrary decision than the view taken by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation of "infrastructure facilities" under section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Applicability of judicial precedents to the assessee's case. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of the Assessee for Deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The primary issue in the appeals was whether the assessee, engaged in running a container yard, inland container depot (ICD), container freight station (CFS), and bonded warehouse, was entitled to a deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed this deduction on the grounds that its operations constituted an "inland port," which is recognized as an infrastructure facility under section 80-IA(4). Issue 2: Interpretation of "Infrastructure Facilities" under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction, arguing that the assessee did not meet the conditions outlined in section 80-IA(4), specifically the requirement to enter into an agreement with the Central or State Government or a local authority for developing, operating, and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. The AO also contended that the term "inland port" did not encompass ICDs or CFSs, as per the definitions provided by the Income-tax Act. Issue 3: Applicability of Judicial Precedents to the Assessee's Case The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overruled the AO's decision, relying heavily on judicial precedents. The Commissioner referenced the Mumbai Special Bench Tribunal's decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and the Mumbai Bench Tribunal's decision in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Seva) v. Asst. CIT, which categorized CFSs as inland ports eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4). The Commissioner also noted the Delhi High Court's ruling in Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, which supported the classification of ICDs as inland ports. Tribunal's Ruling: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the consistency of judicial precedents that favored the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was primarily to keep the matter alive, pending a decision from the High Court on similar cases. However, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from established jurisprudence, which recognized CFSs and ICDs as infrastructure facilities eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4). Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, affirming the assessee's eligibility for the deduction under section 80-IA(4). The decision was pronounced in the open court on August 21, 2014.
|
