DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. Following the same reasoning, the assessee was entitled to the deduction.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim for not furnishing a certificate from port authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for operating an Inland Container Depot and Container Freight Station.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. ACIT39 citing346 ITR 140 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by Revenue is against order of CIT(A)-7, Pune, dated 30.09.2016 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 01. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the assessee was eligible for deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the I T Act amounting to Rs.79,43,510/-. 02. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in relying on the decision of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 140 (Delhi) which is misplaced.
ITA No.2864/PUN/2016 2 Mah. State Warehousing Corp.
For the facts and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of (Appeals), Pune may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised by Revenue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier years.
The only issue raised in the present appeal filed by Revenue is against order of CIT(A) in holding the assessee to be eligible for claiming deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act at ₹ 79,43,510/-.
The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee was State Government Undertaking and had set up Inland Container Depot (ICD) and Container Freight Station (CFS) for handling bonded warehouse on the leasehold land of SIDCO in the vicinity of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of assessee under section 80IA(4) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish a certificate from the concerned port authorities certifying that the structure at the port for storage, loading and unloading etc. formed part of Port.
We find that similar claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act was denied to the assessee in assessment year 2009-10 and thereafter also in assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal allowed the claim of assessee in assessment year 2009-10 in ITA No.820/PN/2013 vide order dated 09.05.2016, which was followed by the Tribunal itself in ITA No.1014/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2011-12, vide order dated 28.07.2017. The relevant findings of Tribunal are at pages 3 to 7 under paras 6 and 7 of the order dated
ITA No.2864/PUN/2016 3 Mah. State Warehousing Corp.
28.07.2017, in which findings of earlier order of Tribunal are reproduced. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the findings of Tribunal, to which reference is being made by us. The CIT(A) has also allowed the claim of assessee in turn, relying on the order of Tribunal dated 09.05.2016 for earlier year.
The issue raised in the present appeal is similar to the issue before the Tribunal in earlier years and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 11th day of February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 11th February, 2019. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-7, Pune; 3. 4. The Pr.CIT, Pune-6, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 80IA(4)
- Bombay Highway Carriers Private Limited… vs ITO Ward 5 (1), DelhiITA 6863/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central… vs Megha Engineering Infrastructures Limited…ITA 6273/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Cicago Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs ACIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 994/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: Heard1 Sept 2026AY 2018-2019
- Gl Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs Circle 1(3)(1), MumbaiITA 2429/MUM/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Jul 2026AY 2024-25
- Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/S. Gharpure Engineering & Construction P…ITA 1042/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed18 Jun 2026AY 2009-10
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026