PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSE CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
ITXA/810/2018HC Bombay09 January 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the proposed questions did not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Court noted that a similar issue had already been decided in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Supra). Since there was no change in the facts or the law, the Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. The reasoning was based on the principle of consistency and the established legal position as determined by higher courts in similar matters. The ITAT's finding that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4) was implicitly upheld by the High Court's decision not to frame substantial questions of law. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee, Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, a State Government undertaking, established an Inland Container Depot (ICD) and Container Freight Station (CFS) near Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT). The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied this deduction, stating that the assessee failed to provide a certificate from the Port Authority confirming the warehousing facility was part of the port. This requirement was based on a Board's notification dated 23rd June 2000, followed by Circular No. 10 of 2005. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, had previously allowed a similar claim for AY 2009-10, relying on a precedent. The revenue's appeal against that decision was dismissed, citing decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court. The present appeal is filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Pune, against the ITAT's order for AY 2011-12.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in holding the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) amounting to Rs. 6,33,26,452/-? 2. Whether the ITAT failed to appreciate the AO's finding that JNPT declined to issue a certificate stating the warehousing was part of the Port? 3. Whether the ITAT failed to appreciate that the Board's notification dated 30.06.2000, relied upon by the assessee, was subsequently withdrawn by Circular No. 10/2005 dated 16.12.2005? 4. Whether the ITAT erred in relying on the decision of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 140 (Delhi)? 5. Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee fulfilled all conditions for deduction under Section 80IA(4)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee claimed eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The ITAT had previously allowed a similar claim for AY 2009-10, relying on the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JWC Logistics Park P. Ltd. The revenue's appeal against that order was dismissed, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the assessee failed to obtain a mandatory certificate from the Port Authority, as required by a Board's notification and subsequent circular. The revenue also contended that the notification relied upon by the assessee had been withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA(4),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITXA-810-2018-J..doc THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 810 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, 4th Floor, Aayakar Sadan, Bodhi Tower, Salisbery Park, Gultekdi, Pune-411037 ] ] ] ] ]… Appellant Versus Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, 583/B, Market Yard, Gultekdi, Pune 411 037. PAN : AABCM3988M A.Y. 2011-12 ] ] ] ] ] ]..Respondent **** Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for appellant. Ms.Rucha Vaidya i/b Ms.Farzeen Khambatta, Advocate for respondent. ***** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR &

KAMAL KHATA, JJ. RESERVED ON : PRONOUNCED ON : 5th JANUARY, 2023 9th JANUARY 2023 J U D G M E N T PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Shraddha Talekar, PS 1/5 CNR No : HCBM020004532018 Uploaded on - 09/01/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:47:55

ITXA-810-2018-J..doc Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) has been preferred against the order dated 28th July 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune (“Tribunal”), relevant to the assessment year 2011-12, whereby, the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed. 2. The following substantial questions of law have been framed for our consideration : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune (ITAT) has erred in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act, amounting to Rs.6,33,26,452/-? (ii) Wehther on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Pune has not appreciated the facts fnding made by the A.O. that Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) has declined to issue a certifcate that Warehousing of the assessee is part of the Port? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Pune has not appreciated that Board’s notifcation dated 30.06.2000 relied by the assessee has been subsequently withdrawn through

Circular

No.10/2005

dated 16.12.2005? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the Shraddha Talekar, PS 2/5 Uploaded on - 09/01/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:47:55

ITXA-810-2018-J..doc circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Pune has erred in relying on the decision of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 140 (Delhi)? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Pune was justifed in holding that the assessee has fulflled all the conditions laid down for the deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act? 3. Briefy stated the material facts are as under : (a) The assessee is a State Government undertaking which had set up an Inland Container Depot (ICD) and Container Freight Station (CFS) in the vicinity of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT). In its return of income, the assessee claimed a deduction in terms of section 80IA(4) of the Act. (b) The Assessing Offcer, however, denied the beneft on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish a certifcate from the concerned Port Authority certifying that the structure was a part of the Port, which it considered mandatory in view of the Board’s notifcation dated 23rd June 2000 Shraddha Talekar, PS 3/5 Uploaded on - 09/01/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:47:55

ITXA-810-2018-J..doc followed by Circular No.10 of 2005 dated 16th December 2005. 4. A similar claim was also denied to the assessee for the year 2009-10, for similar reasons. The Tribunal, in reference to the assessment year 2009-10, allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JWC Logistics Park P. Ltd. 1 5. This fnding of the Tribunal was followed even for the instant assessment year 2011-12. It needs to be mentioned that an appeal fled by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal, being Appeal No.886 of 2017, in regard to the assessment year 2009-10, also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24th September 2019 following the views expressed by Delhi High Court in Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 2 and this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation 3. 1 [2014] 34 ITR (Trib) 598 (ITAT, Pune) 2 (2012)346 ITR 140 (Delhi) 3 (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom) Shraddha Talekar, PS 4/5 Uploaded on - 09/01/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:47:55

ITXA-810-2018-J..doc

6.

Since a view has already been taken in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Supra) on the same issue and since there is no change in either the facts or the law, we are of the opinion that the questions proposed do not given rise to any substantial question of law. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ KAMAL KHATA, J. ] [DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.] Shraddha Talekar, PS 5/5 Uploaded on - 09/01/2023 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 22:47:55 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 80IA(4)

All 475 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →