ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. OLYMPIA TECH PARK (CHENNAI) PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ यायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एबी टी. वक
, ाियक सद एवं
एवं
एवं
एवं
ी जगदीश, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.873, 886 & 832/Chny/2025
िनधारणवष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19
The ACIT,
Circle-1 (LTU),
Chennai.
v.
M/s. Olympia Tech Park,
SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [PAN: AABCO 8102 F]
(अपीलाथ/Appellant)
(यथ/Respondent)
Department by :
Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Assessee by :
Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CA
सुनवाईकतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
11.06.2025
घोषणाकतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
04.07.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:
These are appeals preferred by the Revenue against separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC,
(hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 27.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2016-17; order dated 29.01.2025 for AY 2017-18 & by order dated 05.02.2025 for AY
2018-19 respectively. Both sides agreed that grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in all the appeals are similar/identical and is only related to deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.80IA(4)(iii) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”). Further, it was brought to our
ITA Nos.873, 886 & 832/Chny/2025
(AYS 2016-17 to 2018-19)
M/s. Olympia Tech Park
:: 2 ::
notice that issues raised are no longer res integra since similar action taken by the AO in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 onwards, was reversed by the Ld.CIT(A); and the Revenue’s appeals against the Ld
CIT(A)’s orders were dismissed by this Tribunal for AY 2012-13 by order dated 03.01.2024 in ITA No.1704/Chny/2018 in the case of DCIT v.
M/s.Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., [successor of M/s. Khivraj
Tech Park]. The grounds raised by the Revenue for captioned AY 2016-17
are reproduced as under:
1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/24-25/1072589855(1) dt. 27.01.2025 for the Assessment year 2016-17 is erroneous in law, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 80IA(4)(iii) made by the assessing officer to the tune of Rs.41.29 crores. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the constitution of the assessee firm(Transferee) was after March 2011, whereas the Industrial Park Scheme(IPS) 2002 and IPS
2008 provides that deduction is allowable only to those undertakings which were notified between the period 01.04.1997 and 31.03.2011 respectively.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Industrial Park Scheme 2008, superceded the earlier scheme, whereby both the transferor and transferee entities have to be notified under the scheme to become eligible or claiming the deduction; the transferor Industrial Park was notified as per IPS, 2002, however the transferee entity was not notified under any of the said 2
schemes.
4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) on the entire income of the undertaking, including the income attributable to the development of the industrial park.
5. The Ld.CIT(A)failed to note that as per the proviso to section 801A(4)(iii), only the transfer of operation and maintenance of the industrial park has to be considered for the deduction in the hands of the transferee and not the entire income due to transfer of the industrial park itself lock stock and barrel.
6. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have noted that there are 3 categories of business activities for an undertaking which are referred in section 801A(4), viz., (1) development of industrial park, (ii) development and operation of industrial park and (iii) operation and maintenance of industrial park; the assessee
(transferee) is not a developer of industrial park but is only carrying out operation and maintenance of the industrial park and accordingly only the part of income as is attributable to "operation and maintenance" can be allowed as ITA Nos.873, 886 & 832/Chny/2025
(AYS 2016-17 to 2018-19)
M/s. Olympia Tech Park
:: 3 ::
a deduction u/s 80IA(4) and not the entire of the income derived from the industrial undertaking.
2. As submitted before us supra, we note that similar/identical grounds were raised by the Revenue before this Tribunal [in the assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13] which has been repelled by this Tribunal by order dated 03.01.2024 for AY 2012-13 supra. Hence, it would be gainful to reproduce the order of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13 wherein we note that the Revenue had raised similar grounds of appeal as in the present appeals, which are reproduced:
“1. The order of the Id CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2.1 The ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.41.25 crores.
2.2 The ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the constitution of the assessee firm (transferee) was after March 2011, whereas the IPS 2002 &
2008 provide that deduction is allowable only to those undertakings which were notified between the period 1.4.1997 and 31.03.2011. 2.3 The Id CIT(A) failed to note that as per Industrial Park Scheme, 2008
superceded the earlier schemes, whereby both the transferor and transferee entities have to be notified under the scheme to become eligible for claiming the deduction ; the transferor Industrial Park was notified as per IPS,
2002,whereas the transferee entity was not notified under any of the two scheme~
3.1 The Id CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction u/ s 80I(4)(iii) on the entire income of the undertaking, including the income attributable to the development of the industrial park such as rent, operation and maintenance and fit out.
3.2 The ld CIT(A) failed to note that as per the proviso to Sec.80IA(4)(iii), only the transfer of operation and maintenance of the industrial park has to be considered for the deduction in the hands of the transferee and not the entire income due to transfer of the industrial park itself lock stock and barrel.
3.3 The Id CIT(A) ought to have noted that three categories of business activities have been mentioned u/s 80IA(4)(iii) for. an undertaking, viz., only developing of industrial park, developing and operating an industrial park and only operating and maintaining an industrial park ; the assessee (transferee)
ITA Nos.873, 886 & 832/Chny/2025
(AYS 2016-17 to 2018-19)
M/s. Olympia Tech Park
:: 4 ::
not a developer of industrial park but only carrying out operation and maintenance and accordingly only that part of income as is attributable to "operation and maintenance" and not the whole of the income derived from the industrial undertaking, can be allowed in the hands of the assessee for the purpose of the deduction.
4.1 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's claim of netting off of interest income with interest expenditure on bank deposits for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii).
4.2 The ld CIT(A) ought to have noted that only income derived from operation and maintenance qualify for the deduction and interest income earned out of deposits with banks cannot form part of eligible income in the context of Sec.
80IA as they do not have a direct nexus with the profits of the undertaking.
5.1 The ld CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to treat the sta 7 tus of assessee as firm as against AO's action of treating the assessee as AOP.
5.2 The ld CIT(A) failed to note that the Memorandum and Articles of Association of partner companies did not authorise to enter into partnership and that while Memorandum of Association was amended the approval of the