COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SANCO TRANS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TCA/105/2018HC Madras19 November 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice N. KIRUBAKARAN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial question of law raised in these appeals had already been answered against the Revenue by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. A.L.Logistics Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 374 ITR 609. The Court noted that a Review Petition filed against the A.L.Logistics Pvt. Ltd. judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, as the present appeals were covered by the aforementioned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. No costs were awarded. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "B" Bench, dated 23.09.2016. The ITAT had dismissed the Revenue's appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee is M/s. Sanco Trans Ltd. The dispute pertains to whether a Container Freight Station (CFS) is considered part of an Inland Port and thus an infrastructure facility eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a Container Freight Station (CFS) is part of an Inland Port and therefore an infrastructure facility as defined in the Explanation to Section 80IA(A)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and entitled to deduction under the said Section? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the fact that the ITAT rejected the Revenue's contention implies the assessee's position was in favor of the CFS being an infrastructure facility. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that a CFS is not part of an Inland Port and therefore not an infrastructure facility eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Revenue relied on the substantial question of law admitted by the court, which frames this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.11.2019 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN T.C.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. ... Appellant (in both appeals) Vs M/s.Sanco Trans Ltd., New No.46, Moore Street, Chennai 600 001. PAN: AAACS 7690 F ... Respondent (in both appeals) PRAYER in T.C.A.No.105 of 2018: Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Madras

“B”

Bench,

dated

23.09.2016

in ITA.No.1522/mds/2016. PRAYER in T.C.A.No.106 of 2018: Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Madras

“B”

Bench,

dated

23.09.2016

in ITA.No.1523/mds/2016. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2018 For Appellant :Mr.J.Narayanasamy (in both appeals) Senior standing counsel For Respondent :Mr.Venkata Narayanan (in both appeals) for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J) The Appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “B” Bench, dated 23.09.2016 in ITA.Nos.1522 &1523/Mds/2016 for the Assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2.The orders of the CIT(A), dated 11.03.2016 for the assessment years, 2010-11 to 2011-12 were challenged before the Tribunal by the Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention of the Revenue and dismissed the same. Against the order of the Appellate Tribunal only, present appeals have been filed. 3.These appeals were admitted on 27.03.2018 on the following substantial question of law : 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2018 “Whether Container Freight Station (CFS) is part of Inland Port and therefore, an infrastructure facility as defined in the Explanation to Section 80IA (A) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and entitled to deduction under the said Section?" 4.When the matter is called today Mr.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the substantial question of law raised in this case have already been answered against the revenue by the Division Bench of this court in a similar case in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs. A.L.Logistics Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2015) 374 ITR 609 and the Review Petition filed against the above judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5.Since the present Appeal is covered by the above judgment, the present Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (NKKJ) (PVJ) 19.11.2019 sai 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2018 N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. and P.VELMURUGAN

, J.

sai To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. 2.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.105 & 106 of 2018 Dated : 19.11.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →