2015 (7) TMI 1391 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA towards O M - profits derived from Kakinada port, Jamnagar port and Dahei port thought the assessee did not enter into an agreement for operation and maintenance of infrastructure facility with the Central Government/State Government/Local Authority/Statutory Authority - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2012 (6) TMI 912 - ITAT HYDERABAD issue relating to claim of deduction in respect of Jamnagar, Kakinada and Dahej ports are decided in favour of assessee, hence, do not require any more deliberation. The order of ld. CIT(A) in allowing deduction to assessee u/s 80IA in respect of Jamnagar, Kakinada and Dahej ports being in consonance with the view expressed by ITAT in assessee s own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order. As far as Nagapattinam port is concerned, on perusal of the certificate issued by the Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a copy of which is at page 68 of the paper book, it is evident that assessee has entered into contract with CPCL for O M of the port. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that assessee is not engaged in operation and maintenance activity is without any basis. It is further observed that AO while denying assessee s claim of deduction has observed that nature of work carried out by assessee cannot be considered as O M. The activities carried on by assessee being in the nature of O M of infrastructure facility, it is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4). Though the aforesaid observation of ITAT is in respect of Jamnagar, Kakinada and Dahej ports, but, since the facts in relation to other ports are also more or less similar, these observations of ITAT will also apply to the other ports in respect of which assessee has claimed of deduction u/s 80iA. In fact, in the assessment order, AO himself has stated that there is no change in the activity of assessee from AY 2000-01 onwards. Therefore, there being no material change either in the facts relating to assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IA or the nature of activity of the assessee in the impugned assessment year, the decisions of the coordinate benches on the issue in assessee s own case would squarely apply. As far as AY 2010-11 is concerned, the issue is more or less identical, except, the fact that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA for the first time in respect of Karaikal port being operated by Karaikal Port company Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, assessee has submitted a certificate from the port authority certifying that they have entered into an agreement with assessee for O M of the port. That being the case, the decision rendered in respect of AY 2009-10 equally applies to the facts of the present case. - Revenue appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the decision of ld. CIT(A) allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Analysis:
1. AY 2009-10:
- The assessee, engaged in O&M of ports and marine services, claimed deduction u/s 80IA for five ports.
- AO rejected the claim citing lack of infrastructure development and absence of necessary agreements with govt. bodies.
- Assessee contended that similar deductions were allowed in previous years by appellate authorities.
- CIT(A) allowed deductions for certain ports based on past decisions and certificates from port authorities.
- ITAT upheld CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing past rulings and agreements with port authorities.

2. AY 2010-11:
- Similar issue arose for the Karaikal port, claimed for the first time.
- Assessee provided a certificate from the port authority supporting the O&M agreement.
- ITAT applied the same reasoning as in AY 2009-10, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

3. Conclusion:
- The appeals by the department were dismissed for both AYs, affirming the allowance of deductions u/s 80IA.
- ITAT relied on past decisions, agreements with port authorities, and consistency in the nature of activities by the assessee.
- The judgments emphasized the importance of fulfilling statutory conditions for claiming deductions under the relevant provisions of the Act.
- The decisions highlighted the significance of documentary evidence and legal precedents in determining the eligibility for tax deductions.