2016 (4) TMI 1448 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA(4) - Tribunal held that the condition provided in clause (b) of Section 80IA(4)(i) is not mandatory, and therefore, the assessee is entitled to get deduction under Section 80IA(4) - HELD THAT - Revenue very fairly states that the questions framed herein stands concluded by the decision of this Court in the Commissioner of Income- Tax vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT in favour of the respondent assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of mandatory conditions under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') related to the Assessment Year 2006-07, specifically focusing on the entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. The primary issue is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction under Section 80IA(4) despite the Circular of the CBDT No.10/2005 and the withdrawal of certification by JNPT Port for the company. The key contention revolves around the interpretation of the provisions of Section 80IA(4) and their applicability to the given circumstances.

2. Another significant question raised in the appeal pertains to the mandatory nature of the conditions provided in clause (b) of Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision to consider these conditions as non-mandatory and allowing the assessee to claim the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is under scrutiny. The debate centers on whether the conditions outlined in the Act are obligatory for claiming the deduction or if there is room for discretion in their application.

3. The learned counsel for the Revenue concedes that the questions raised in the appeal have already been addressed and decided by the High Court in a previous case, Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The decision in favor of the respondent-assessee in the mentioned case serves as a precedent for the current appeal, leading to the conclusion that the questions framed do not present any substantial legal issues warranting further consideration.

4. Consequently, the High Court dismisses the appeal, emphasizing that the questions of law raised in the case do not give rise to any substantial legal queries. The decision is made based on the precedent set by the previous judgment and the lack of new legal grounds requiring examination.

5. In conclusion, the High Court upholds the Tribunal's decision and dismisses the appeal, stating that no costs are awarded in this matter. The judgment highlights the importance of precedent and the application of established legal principles in determining the outcome of tax-related disputes under the Income Tax Act, 1961.