2019 (11) TMI 1483 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA (A) (i) - Container Freight Station (CFS) - Whether Container Freight Station (CFS) is part of Inland Port and therefore, an infrastructure facility as defined in the Explanation to Section 80IA (A) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and entitled to deduction under the said Section? - HELD THAT - Substantial question of law raised in this case have already been answered against the revenue by the Division Bench of this court in a similar case in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. A.L.Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and the Review Petition filed against the above judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the present Appeal is covered by the above judgment, the present Appeals are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.
2. Whether Container Freight Station (CFS) is part of Inland Port and entitled to deduction under Section 80IA (A) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras heard the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Tribunal had rejected the Revenue's contention, leading to the present appeals. The substantial question of law before the Court was whether a Container Freight Station (CFS) is considered part of an Inland Port and qualifies as an infrastructure facility for deduction under Section 80IA (A) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

During the proceedings, the Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant referred to a previous judgment by a Division Bench of the same court in a similar case involving The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. A.L.Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The appellant argued that the substantial question of law raised in the present case had already been decided against the Revenue in the mentioned judgment. The Review Petition filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, further supporting the appellant's position.

Considering the precedent set by the previous judgment and the dismissal of the Review Petition by the Supreme Court, the High Court concluded that the present appeals were covered by the earlier decision. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeals, stating that no costs were to be incurred. Subsequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed as a result of the judgment.