2021 (4) TMI 152 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/S 80IA on Inland Container Depot - HELD THAT - Apex Court held the issue in favour of the assessee in the decision reported in CIT vs. Container Corporation of India 2018 (5) TMI 359 - SUPREME COURT .the term Inland Port' has been defined nowhere. But the Notification that has been issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) dated 24.04.2007 in terms holds that considering the nature of work carried out at these ICDs they can be termed as Inland Ports. Further, the communication dated 25.05.2009 issued on behalf of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry confirming that the ICDs are Inland Ports, fortifies the claim of the respondent herein. Though both the Notification and communication are not binding on CBDT to decide whether ICDs can be termed as Inland Ports within the meaning of Section 80-IA of the IT Act, the appellant herein is unable to put forward any reasonable explanation as to why these notifications and communication should not be relied to hold ICDs as Inland Ports. Unless shown otherwise, it cannot be held that the term Inland Ports' is used differently under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. All these facts taken together clear the position beyond any doubt that the ICDs are Inland Ports and subject to the provisions of the 17 Section and deduction can be claimed for the income earned out of these Depots. The actual computation is to be made in accordance with the different Notifications issued by the Customs department with regard to different ICDs located at different places. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of deduction on account of lease rent paid in advance against the land taken on longterm lease for business purposes on pro rata basis - HELD THAT - As relying on assessee's previous year For this assessment year also, Ld. CIT DR did not object for the issue being set aside with a direction clearly bringing on the facts whether it is the claim of depreciation or whether the claim of allowability of expenditure. Recording the same we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and remained the same to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to furnish the complete details of the claim of the assessee clearly bringing out the facts whether it is a claim of the depreciation or whether it is a claim of the allowability of expenditure. Ground No. 2 of assessee s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. Deduction under section 80IA of the Act on the Rail System (Rolling stock) - HELD THAT - . Assessment order itself shows that the learned Assessing Officer is aware of the fact of Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT in allowing the deduction, but observed that it was not acceptable to the Revenue and since the Department filed appeal before the higher appellate forum is, the issue had not attained finality. Revenue, however, did not produce any material before us to contradict the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) that the Department had accepted the orders of the ITAT for the assessment year 2003-04 and no appeal was filed before the Hon ble High Court. Since a consistent view has been taken by the appellate authorities right from Assessment Year 2003-04 and for all the successive years such disallowance was deleted, in the absence of any material to show that such view taken by the appellate authorities had not attained finality, we find it difficult to deviate from such consistent view. While respectfully following the view taken by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2003-04 and also the subsequent deletions made by the appellate authorities, we hold that this disallowance cannot be sustained has to be deleted. We therefore, direct the assessing officer to delete this addition.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 80IA of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of deduction on account of amortization of advance lease rent.
3. Eligibility of deduction under section 80IA on the Rail System (Rolling stock).

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the disallowance of deduction under section 80IA, citing a favorable decision by the jurisdictional High Court for previous assessment years. However, authorities refused to follow the decision due to a Special Leave Petition (SLP) admitted by the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that a subsequent Supreme Court decision favored them, rendering the disallowance unsustainable. The ITAT examined the case, noting that the deduction for Inland Container Depots (ICDs) was previously disallowed, but the Supreme Court's recent decision clarified that ICDs can be considered Inland Ports, making the disallowance invalid. Consequently, the ITAT directed the assessing officer to delete the disallowance.

2. Regarding the disallowance of amortization of advance lease rent, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the deduction, stating that land cannot be considered a depreciable asset. The appellant referenced a previous Tribunal decision in their favor for another assessment year. The ITAT acknowledged the previous ruling and directed the assessing officer to reevaluate the issue based on the complete details provided by the appellant, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

3. The eligibility of deduction under section 80IA for the Rail System (Rolling stock) was disputed by the Revenue. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, but the CIT(A) ruled in favor of the appellant, citing consistent favorable decisions by appellate authorities since 2003-04. The Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting the acceptance of previous deductions by higher forums. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the assessing officer to delete the disallowance. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, while the appeal of the assessee was partially allowed for statistical purposes.