9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 681 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 80IA(4) - infrastructure activities with respect to CFS and ICDs - HELD THAT - As respectfully following the decision in the assessee s own case for the AY 2011-12 2015 (12) TMI 365 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM as well as the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Container Corporation 2018 (5) TMI 359 - SUPREME COURT and M/s. AL Logistics (P) Ltd 2015 (1) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT decision of Continental Warehousing Corporation 2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , as having regard to the provisions of the Customs Act, the communication issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as well as the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the object of including inland port as an infrastructure facility and also that customs clearance also takes place in the inland container depot, the assessee s claim that the inland container depots were inland ports under Explanation (d) to sec. 80IA(4) required to be upheld - we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the assessee s appeal.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Definition and inclusion of Container Freight Station (CFS) as "infrastructure facility". 3. Requirement of an agreement with the government or statutory authority for claiming deduction. Summary: 1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA(4): The primary issue was whether the assessee, a domestic company operating a Container Freight Station (CFS), was eligible for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, amounting to Rs. 20,05,66,144/-, on the grounds that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions enumerated in Circular No. 793 and Circular No. 10/2005. The AO also noted that the case laws relied upon by the assessee were distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the case. 2. Definition and Inclusion of CFS as "Infrastructure Facility": The AO contended that the definition of "infrastructure facility" under Section 80IA(4) includes "a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea" but does not include a Container Freight Station (CFS). The AO relied on a clarification issued by the CBDT in F.No. 178/42/2010-ITA-I, dated 06/01/2011, which stated that an ICD or a CFS is usually located at the port and is not a part of the port for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i). 3. Requirement of Agreement with Government or Statutory Authority: The AO argued that as per Section 80IA(4), there should be an agreement with the Central Government, State Government, Local Authority, or any statutory body. In the absence of such an agreement, the AO held that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction. Appeal Before CIT(A): The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowed the appeal of the assessee, observing that similar issues had been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Container Corporation [404 ITR 397 (SC) (2018)] and various High Courts, which held that a CFS qualifies as an "inland port" and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). Tribunal's Decision: The ITAT Visakhapatnam upheld the decision of the CIT(A), dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by the judgments of various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which recognized CFS as an "inland port" eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal also observed that the assessee had complied with the conditions laid down by the government, even if there was no specific agreement. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and held that the decision was in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the assessee's eligibility for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4) was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of "infrastructure facility" includes CFS as an "inland port" and that the assessee had met the necessary conditions for the deduction.
|
