MUNDRA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUNDRA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee, as a recognized contractor operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility under a sub-concession agreement, was eligible for the deduction under Section 80IA(4) based on the proviso to the section. The High Court judgments cited supported this view.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deductions under Section 80IA(4) for operating and maintaining a container terminal. The Assessing Officer denied this claim, but the CIT(A) allowed it, relying on High Court judgments regarding infrastructure facilities and sub-concession agreements. The Revenue appealed this deletion.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) for operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility based on a sub-concession agreement, despite not directly contracting with the government authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.
- CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.579 citing372 ITR 97 · 2014 · HC
- 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.18 citing33 Taxmann.com 678 · 2013 · HC
- CIT v. Chettinad Lignite Transport Services (P) Limited8 citing415 ITR 107 · HC
- CIT v. A.L. Logistic Pvt. Ltd.7 citing374 ITR 601
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
आदेश क� आदेश क� ��त�ल�प ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत अ�े�षत अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�े�षत आदेश आदेश क� क� ��त�ल�प ��त�ल�प 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील$य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड) फाईल / Guard file.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Mundra International Container Terminal…Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025Dismissed
Also relies on 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee, as a recognized contractor operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility under a sub-concession agreement, was eligible for the deduction unde...
- The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs Mundra International Container Terminal…Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019Dismissed
Also relies on 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing depreciation on infrastructure usage rights as an intangible asset. It also confirmed that forex losses were business losses and not speculative, and no disallowance un...
- Mundra International Container Terminal… vs The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), AhmedabadAhmedabad22 Aug 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on 187 Taxman 111 (Del) (2) CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. It also ruled that the assessee's sub-concession agreement with APSEZ, with consent from Gujarat Maritime Board, satisfied the...
- The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs M/S. Amjay Medimza (India) Pvt. Ltd…Ahmedabad4 Mar 2019Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expense could be made on account of CWIP if the assessee's own funds exceeded the CWIP, creating a presumption that borrowed funds were not used. For cessation of liabil...
- Dalmia (Bros) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ITO, Ward-7(2), New DelhiDelhi9 Feb 2024Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.
The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order as it had considered all contentions and dealt with issues in detail. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
