DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2864/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 February 2019AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

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?

Section 80IA(4),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kade
For Respondent: Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal
Hearing: 10.01.2019Pronounced: 11.02.2019

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’).

2.

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.

3.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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/-.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal.

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

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.

9.

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)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →