9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... station is held as eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4). Deduction u/s 80IA claimed consisting head rent and interest on Fixed Deposits - HELD THAT:- We have noted that interest on FD was held to be not inextricably linked with the business of the assessee and was decided against the assessee. However, the other component of income, viz. Rental income is restored back to the file of the AO with similar direction as contained in order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10 [ 2019 (8) TMI 1472 - ITAT MUMBAI ] Disallowance u/s 14A - Proof of earning exempt income - HELD THAT:- We have noted that during the period under consideration, the assessee has not earned any exempt income. There is no finding of AO, whether the assessee has earned any exempt inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was contrary to the Circular of the CBDT No. 10/2005 as also contrary to the fact that JNPT had withdrawn its certification of the Company? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the condition provided in sub-clause(b) of section 80-IA(4)(i) of the Act is not mandatory and therefore, the assessee is entitled to get deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the container Freight Station (CFS) is an extension of port activity and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s eligible for deduction u/s.80IA (4) of the Act. Both the parties mutually agreed at the time of hearing that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd., reported in 404 ITR 397 (SC) wherein it was held that container freight station is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA (4) of the Act. Since the facts recorded by the Id. CIT(A) in his order are not in dispute before us, respectfully following the aforesaid Supreme Court decision which is also not disputed by the parties before us, the grounds raised by the revenue for the A.Y.2007-08 are dismissed. 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of Tribunal on identical set of facts, and respectfully following the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpenses on an ad hoc basis by alleging that the same were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. 5. The Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance a sum of ₹ 1,05,000/- being 30 % of ₹ 3,50,0007- disallowed by the assessing officer out of Miscellaneous expenses on an ad hoc basis, alleging that the same were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. 6. The Learned CIT (A) erred in abruptly allowing only part relief to the aforesaid expenses without appreciating the fact that the same were incurred for the purpose of appellant's business only. More so, major expenses were allowed by the Hon'ble IT AT in earlier years on the basis of the same set of facts. 11. Ground 1 of the appeal relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome. Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2013-14. The appellant carries the business of providing containers freight services. This is given recognition as an inland port. This facilitates the exporters and importers to use the services of these inland ports and save (hem the troubles of rushing to either Mumbai or to any other port near the sea. When the exporter or importer brings the goods to be exported or imported to our inland port, their responsibility ends and our facilities thereafter send the goods to the ports. Sometimes the goods remain in our ports when the importer or exporter finds it unprofitable to remove the goods. If the goods would have remained at regular ports then either importer or exporter might have to pay demurrage. Our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, on the issue with regard to the rental income is restored back to the file of the AO with similar direction as contained in order of the Tribunal for AY 2009-10. This ground of appeal is partly allowed. 15. Ground 2 relates to disallowance u/s 14A. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that during the relevant period under consideration, no exempt income was earned by assessee, therefore, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted. 16. On the other hand, the Ld.DR for the revenue submits that the AO may be directed to verify the fact, if any exempt income was earned by the assessee or not. 17. We have considered the submission of both the parties, perused the material available on record. We have noted that during the period under considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
