THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONTAINER

PDF · subscribers
TCA/553/2017HC Madras29 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the substantial questions of law framed for consideration in these appeals had already been answered against the Revenue by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 0397 (SC). The Court also noted that it had previously considered an identical question in the case of M/s.A.S.Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Chennai. Following these precedents, the High Court dismissed the appeals. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals, with no costs awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the eligibility of earnings and the exclusion from turnover were implicitly upheld by dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated November 25, 2016, concerning the assessment year 2009-10. The ITAT had set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263. The assessee is M/s. Continental Container Freight Stations Pvt. Ltd., and the appeals are directed against the Revenue. The core dispute revolves around the eligibility of certain earnings for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the computation of turnover for this purpose.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, holding that earnings from a container freight station were eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that warehousing rentals received from various facilities, transportation costs related to specific CFSs, and vehicle lease and rental charges should not be excluded from the turnover while computing deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Revenue argued that the Commissioner's order under Section 263 was justified and that certain income components should be excluded from turnover for Section 80IA(4) deduction. The assessee contended that the earnings from the container freight station were eligible for deduction and that the turnover computation was correct. The judgment does not explicitly detail all arguments or authorities cited by each side, but it notes that the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 263,Section 80IA(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A.No.1394/Mds/2014
I.T.A.No.136/Mds/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

T.C.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeals Nos.553 and 554 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income tax, Chennai. .. Appellant/Respondent in both Appeals -vs- M/s.Continental Container Freight Stations Pvt. Ltd., 81, Samy Complex, Thambu Chetty Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AADCC3448C .. Respondent/Appellant in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 25.11.2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1394/Mds/2014 and I.T.A.No.136/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Ms.R.Hemalatha, (In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar (In both Appeals) ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals by the appellant/Revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 25.11.2016, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C'

Bench,

Chennai,

I.T.A.No.1394/Mds/2014

and I.T.A.No.136/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2.The Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- T.C.A.No.553 of 2017:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order passed u/s.263 of the I.T. Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax holding that the earning from container freight station was eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act?” T.C.A.No.554 of 2017:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that warehousing rentals received in Corporate office, Ennore facility and Pondy CFS, Transportation cost relating to Pondicherry CFS and Tuticorin CFS and Vehicle lease and rental charges etc should not be excluded from the turnover while computing deduction u/s.80IA(4)?” 3.We have heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2017 Counsel for the appellant/Revenue; and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 4.It is not disputed by the Revenue that the substantial questions of law framed for consideration in these appeals have been answered against the Revenue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 0397 (SC). 5.We had an occasion to consider identical question in the case of M/s.A.S.Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Chennai [T.C.A.Nos.596 to 600 of 2019, dated 09.08.2019]. 6.Following the above decisions, these tax case appeals are dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 abr T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2017 V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle-I(3), Chennai-600 034. 2.The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai-I, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.553 and 554 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →