2016 (12) TMI 460 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction under section 80IA(4) eligibility - warehousing rental received - Held that - There is no dispute that assessee was operating a container freight station and providing warehousing facilities. Ld. Assessing Officer himself had stated that there was approval from the assessee for its CFS operation at Chennai, Tuticorin, Tiruppur and Karur at para 3 of his order. That warehousing facilities operated by the assessee were part and parcel of the CFS activity has not disputed by the Revenue. As in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd vs. ACIT 2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT had held that even inland container depot would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act when it was doing activities similar to CFS. Therefore, we are of the opinion that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in taking a view that warehousing rental received by the assessee in Corporate office Ennore and Pondicherry were eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act considering these as part of the CFS facility. For transportation revenue relating to Pondicherry and Tuticorin to ports, it is not disputed that such transportation charges were received for moving goods in cargo containers to the ports. Hence, the distinction sought to be made between areas of transport was not in our opinion justified. Similarly, incidental charges on account of trailer detention and vehicle lease, were a part of the bouquet of services offered by the assessee as a part of its CFS division. Hence, we are of the opinion that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act on these items. For unsecured loans as it is stated by the assessee itself that lenders were ex-partners. Hence there is every reason for ld. Assessing Officer to believe that course of business was arranged in such a manner that more than eligible amount was shown as the profit. Assessee was not able to show why interest was not charged by the above mentioned persons when substantial unsecured loans were outstanding in their names. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that nonpayment of interest to these persons had resulted in excessive relief being granted to the assessee u/s.80IA(4) . Disallowance of depreciation on warehousing facility at Bangalore - Held that - Value of the above asset was shown as a part of capital work in progress in the fixed asset schedule of the assessee. There was no income whatsoever credited in the profit and loss from the facility. If it was operational assessee would have earned at least a nominal income from this facility. Hence, in our opinion, depreciation was rightly disallowed. We do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. Revision u/s 263 - Held that - We find that ld. Assessing Officer had allowed deduction to assessee u/s.80IA (4) of the Act considering the CFS to be an infrastructure facility eligible for such benefit. Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. A.L. Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (1) TMI 401 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ) which was for assessment year 2009-2010 has held that earning from container freight station was eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. Further in the appeal of the assessee against denial of deduction on some parts of its turnover, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had held in assessee s favour and this view has been upheld by us at para 11 & 12 above. We are therefore of the opinion that the assessment could not have been considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, ld. Assessing Officer having a taken a view which was legally permissible. We, therefore setaside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax.

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Notional interest charge on unsecured loans.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on warehousing facilities.
4. Revision of assessment under section 263 of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA(4):

The primary issue was whether the assessee's warehousing rental income and other related revenues were eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) excluded certain revenues from the eligible turnover, arguing that standalone warehousing facilities and transportation costs unrelated to container freight stations (CFS) were not eligible for the deduction. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed, stating that the warehousing rentals and transportation costs were integral to the CFS operations and thus eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view, referencing the Delhi High Court's decision in Container Corporation of India Ltd vs. ACIT and the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. A.L. Logistics Pvt. Ltd, confirming that the warehousing rentals and transportation revenues were part of the CFS activities and eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4).

2. Notional Interest Charge on Unsecured Loans:

The AO imputed a notional interest of 9% on unsecured loans totaling ?11,99,12,541, reducing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4). The AO relied on section 80IA(10) of the Act, suggesting that the business arrangement resulted in higher-than-ordinary profits due to the close connection between the assessee and the lenders. The CIT(A) upheld this view, and the Tribunal agreed, noting that the lenders were ex-partners of the firm converted into the assessee company, justifying the AO's belief that the business was arranged to show inflated profits. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Warehousing Facilities:

The assessee claimed depreciation on its warehousing facility at Bangalore, which the AO disallowed, stating it was part of capital work in progress and not operational. The CIT(A) noted that the asset was shown as capital work in progress and no income was credited from this facility. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of depreciation as the facility was not operational.

4. Revision of Assessment under Section 263:

The CIT revised the AO's assessment under section 263, considering it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, arguing that the AO failed to consider the amendment to section 80IA(4) effective from 01.04.2002. The Tribunal found that the AO had allowed the deduction considering the CFS as an infrastructure facility, which was legally permissible. The Tribunal referenced the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. A.L. Logistics Pvt. Ltd, confirming that earnings from CFS were eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order, stating the assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of both the Revenue and the assessee regarding the eligibility for deduction under section 80IA(4), notional interest charge on unsecured loans, and disallowance of depreciation. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal against the CIT's revision of the assessment under section 263, confirming the AO's original assessment was legally permissible.

← Previous Next →