ACIT CENTRAL CIR 2, MUMBAI vs. JWC LOGISTICS PARK P.LTD, PANVEL

In this appeal, the revenue is aggrieved for deleting disallowance of deduction u/s.80IA(4). 3 Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is in the business of developing, acquiring and managing container yard, Inland Container Depot, Container Freight Station, etc. since assessment year 2005-2006. Its claim for deduction u/s.80IA(4) was declined by the AO on the plea that assessee company is 2 not an ‘Inland Port’(infrastructure facility) as per the Explanation to Section 80IA(4) of the Act.

By the impugned order, the CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim, against which revenue is in appeal before us.

Ld. AR placed on record order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 dated 21-8-2014, wherein similar claim u/s.80IA(4) was allowed by the Tribunal after having following observation :- 4. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. From the statement of facts filed by the Revenue, we find the only grievance of the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) is that the order relied on by the CIT(A) in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhave Sheva) Ltd. (Supra) has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble High court and the same is pending. The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal and to keep the matter alive the Revenue has filed this appeal since the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhave Sheva) Ltd. (Supra) has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble High Court. 4.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 346 ITR 140 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the above decision has held that the income of ICDs is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Liner Agencies of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT and vice versa order dated 28- 06-2013 for A.Yrs 2006-07 and 2009-10 respectively. He submitted that since the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by various decisions of the tribunal and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, therefore, the ground raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. Since the Ld.CIT(A) while allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) has followed the decision of the Tribunal, therefore, merely because the Revenue has challenged the decision of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court, the same in our opinion cannot be a ground to take a contrary decision than the view taken by the Tribunal cited 3 (Supra). In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and the ground raised

6. We had carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and found that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhave Sheva) Ltd.ITA No.7055/Mum/2011, dated 31-8-2012 and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India ltd., 346 ITR 140, respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench in assessee’s own case vis-à-vis decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court cited supra, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act.