9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 996 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA(4) - whether the container freight station of the assessee is an inland port for the purposes of deduction u/s 80IA(4) ? - Held that - The provisions of section 80IA(4), CBDT Circular, reply of the assessee dated 27/12/2011 mentioning CBDT Circular dated 23/06/2000 and 16/12/2005. Circular dated 16/12/2005 has done away with the requirement of agreement and the said circular was discussed by their lordship of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs ABG Heavy Industries Ltd (2010 (2) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). The Bench finally concluded that the claimed deduction cannot be denied to the assessee. So far as, contention of the ld. DR that the decision in the case of AlL Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB)) has not been accepted by the department and appeal has been preferred before the Hon ble High Court, we not that the decision of the Special Bench (aforementioned) has been affirmed by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation and All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) by following Container Corporation of India Ltd. vs ACIT (2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein held having regard to the provisions of the Customs Act, the communications issued by the CBEC as well as the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the object of including inland port as an infrastructure facility and also having regard to the fact that customs clearance also takes place in the ICD, the assessee s claim that the ICDs are Inland Ports under Explanation (d) of Section 80IA(4) requires to be upheld. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Container Freight Station (CFS). 2. Grant of depreciation on UPS, Scanners, and Projectors attached to the computer. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Container Freight Station (CFS): The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Container Freight Station (CFS) of the assessee qualifies as an inland port for the purposes of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the First Appellate Authority erred in holding that the assessee's CFS is an inland port, relying on the decisions in the cases of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and Continental Warehousing Corporation, which were pending before the High Court. The assessee argued that the issue is covered by the Tribunal's decision in its own case (ITA No. 273, 275, 943 & 944/Mum/2013) dated 28/06/2013, and by the decision in 374 ITR 645 (Bom.). The Tribunal noted that the issue pertains to whether the CFS qualifies as an inland port under Section 80IA(4)(i). The Tribunal observed that similar issues were raised by the Revenue in other cases, and the Special Bench had held that CFSs are entitled to deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Special Bench in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and the Delhi High Court in Container Corporation of India Ltd., which held that an Inland Container Depot (ICD) is an inland port. The Tribunal noted that the functions of a CFS are similar to those of an ICD, including warehousing, customs clearance, and transport of goods. The Tribunal also discussed the legislative history and various circulars issued by the CBDT, which included CFSs in the definition of "infrastructure facility" for the purposes of Section 80IA. The Tribunal emphasized that the CBDT's Circular No. 10/2005 dated 16/12/2005 clarified that structures at ports for storage, loading, and unloading would be included in the definition of "port" for the purposes of Section 80IA, provided the port authority issued a certificate stating that the structures form part of the port. The Tribunal found that the assessee had obtained the necessary certificate from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) stating that its CFS could be considered an extended arm of the port. The Tribunal also noted that the withdrawal of the certificate by JNPT did not affect the assessee's eligibility for deduction, as the Special Bench had held that such withdrawal was not material for denying the deduction. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's CFS qualifies as an inland port for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) and is entitled to the deduction. The Tribunal also addressed the Revenue's argument regarding the absence of a written agreement with the designated authority, stating that the CBDT's Circular No. 10/2005 had done away with the requirement of an agreement for assessment years from 2002-03 onwards. 2. Grant of Depreciation on UPS, Scanners, and Projectors Attached to the Computer: The second issue pertains to the grant of depreciation on UPS, scanners, and projectors attached to the computer. The assessee claimed depreciation at 60%, while the Assessing Officer allowed it at 25%. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Orient Ceramics and Industries Ltd., which held that depreciation at 60% should be allowed on such items. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could not cite any contrary decision from any other High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 60% on UPS, scanners, and projectors attached to the computer. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the First Appellate Authority's decision that the assessee's CFS qualifies as an inland port for the purposes of Section 80IA(4) and that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 60% on UPS, scanners, and projectors attached to the computer. The Tribunal emphasized that the decisions of the Special Bench and the Delhi High Court in similar cases supported the assessee's claims. The Tribunal also noted that the CBDT's circulars and legislative amendments had clarified the eligibility criteria for deductions and depreciation, which the assessee had met.
|
