9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 401 - HC - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA(4) - revenue contended that assessee had not developed the infrastructure facilities as it was only a custodian for the movement and handling of all containerized import/export consignment in Container Freight Station - Held that - As has been observed by the Tribunal in the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT container freight station is held to be falling within the customs area attached to the port. As the work relating to customs is performed at these inland container depots/container freight stations it would fall under the provision of Section 80IA(4)(i) Explanation (d) of the Income Tax Act. The plea of Mr.T.Ravikumar learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue that any other public facility on similar nature has been omitted with effect from 1.4.2002 will not make the case any different in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court (supra) which holds that CSF is part of an inland port and there is no specific exclusion of CSF in clause (d) of Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i). Therefore on fact when it has been found by the Tribunal that CSF is an infrastructure facility we find no good reason to differ on fact. Whether the requirement of Section 80IA(4)(i) has been satisfied - Held that - Tribunal has considered the proposal approved by the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 27.5.2003 which has been extracted in paragraph 6 of the Tribunal and the public notice dated 10.11.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkatta permitting the CSF to operate. Once the public notice was issued and is valid as on date it is deemed to be approval granted by the competent authority of the Central Government or an undertaking or a body of the Central Government. This principle has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar 1992 (1) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it has been held that once a license is issued it is valid until cancelled. Therefore these two documents satisfy the requirement of Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. There is no manner of confusion as the facts culled out by the Tribunal clearly show that the respondent/assessee has complied with the requirements of Section 80IA(4)(i). Whether in the absence of specific agreement with the Central/State Government local authority or Statutory Body the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of section 80IA(4)(i) - Held that - proposal of the assessee was accepted by the Government on certain conditions which were duly complied with by the assessee. There may not be any specific agreement but the sequences of events clearly show that the assessee is providing CFS facility in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Government. In such circumstances there is no need to insist for the specific execution of agreements.- Where no specific agreement with the State Government was entered into but from the approvals granted to the assessee it was inferred that assessee should be deemed to have entered into an agreement with the State Government. Thus we are of the considered view that the assessee has complied with all the provisions of section 80IA(4)(i) and is eligible to claim deduction under the said section. The impugned order is set aside. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether the assessee developed infrastructure facilities or merely acted as a custodian. 3. Impact of the amendment to Section 80IA(4) and the omission of "any other public facility of similar nature" on the eligibility for deduction. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 80IA(4): The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance made under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed a deduction under this section, which the Assessing Officer disallowed, stating that the assessee did not meet the criteria of developing, operating, and maintaining an infrastructure facility as required by the Act. The Tribunal, however, relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. ACIT, which held that Container Freight Stations (CFS) are considered inland ports and thus qualify for the deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's CFS at Haldia met the requirements of an infrastructure facility, thereby entitling the assessee to the deduction. 2. Development of Infrastructure Facilities vs. Custodian Role: The Revenue contended that the assessee did not develop infrastructure facilities but merely acted as a custodian for the movement and handling of containerized import/export consignments. The Tribunal, after examining the documents, including the approval from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and a public notice from the Commissioner of Customs, concluded that the assessee was indeed involved in developing and maintaining the CFS, which qualifies as an infrastructure facility. The Tribunal noted that the work related to customs performed at these inland container depots/container freight stations falls under the definition of "infrastructure facility" as per the Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i). 3. Impact of Amendment to Section 80IA(4): The Revenue argued that the amendment to Section 80IA(4), effective from 01.04.2002, which omitted the phrase "any other public facility of similar nature," should exclude CFS from the benefit of deduction. The Tribunal, however, interpreted that the specific inclusion of "inland port" in the Explanation to Section 80IA(4)(i) encompasses CFS, as they are part of the port infrastructure. The Tribunal's decision was further supported by the Delhi High Court's ruling, which clarified that CFSs are considered part of inland ports. Therefore, the omission of the phrase did not affect the eligibility of CFS for the deduction under Section 80IA(4). Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment, upheld by the High Court, was based on the interpretation that CFS qualifies as an infrastructure facility under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on precedents and specific approvals from competent authorities to conclude that the assessee met the necessary criteria for the deduction. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
