9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CJT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 80,55,84,323/- relying on the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-II, Thane v/s. Continental Warehousing corporation alongwith other cases in ITA No. 523/2013 & 1969/2013 dated 21.04.2015 and Hon. Jurisdictional ITAT decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v/s. DCIT, ITA No. 5018 to 5022 and 5059/M/10 dated 06.07.2012." 3. At the outset, in this case, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA No. 610/Mum/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and outright export, trnas-shipment, take place from such stations. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation India Ltd. (supra) where the assessee carried out activities of Inland Container Depot; Central Freight Stations and port Containers' Terminals, the Hon'ble Court held that the profit derived from such activity is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4). Our Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court following the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court has reiterated the same view. 6. Thereafter, the tribunal referred to the observation of the All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Finally, the tribunal concluded as under: The aforesaid decision and ratio of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance u/s. 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer was not convinced by the explanation of the assessee. He made the following disallowance: 1. Under Rule 8D(2)(ii) Rs. 15,61,317/- 2. Under Rule 8D(2)(iii) Rs. 6,70,830/- Total disallowance was made at Rs. 22,32,147/- This disallowance was also to be done while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 11. Upon the assessee's appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has confirmed the order. 12. Against the above order, the assessee has filed a cross objection. 13. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. As regards the disallowance u/s. 8D(2)(ii), the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the identical issue was decided in favour of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 8D(2)(iii), it is noted that earlier the assessee has not pressed this issue and, hence, the addition @ 0.5% of the average value of the investment was confirmed by the ITAT in the earlier year. Now, the ld. Counsel of the assessee has prayed that the assessee needs to be granted relief in this regard with reference to the decision of the ITAT Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment P. Ltd. vide order dated 16.06.2017, wherein it was expounded that the investment which did not yield exempt income should not enter into the computation while arriving at the average value of investment. The inference hence is that the disallowance u/s. 8D(2)(iii) should be made only with reference to the investment which earned exempt inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
