Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 360 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s. 80IA - non compliance of agreement and commencement u/s. 80IA(4)(i)(b) - Held that:- In view of the above judgment of the High Court [2017 (8) TMI 1190 - KERALA HIGH COURT], the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the I.T. Act. Deduction u/s. 80IA - deduction towards income in respect of surcharge from prepaid taxi, sale of scrap, notice pay, interest on delayed payment and bond from staff - revenue claim the same as ‘income from other sources’ and not as business income - Held that:- The Assessing Officer had already given effect to the above order of the High Court by allowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA of the Act. Hence, the department cannot contest this issue once again before the Tribunal. Deduction u/s. 80IA - whether the income e.g. rent, interest, royalty etc. are from core and essential activities of airport and not from incidental activities of providing amenities to passengers. - Held that:- The Assessing Officer had considered this issue in AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 and granted deduction u/s. 80IA of the I.T. Act in respect of above income and denied deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of income from surcharge from pre paid taxi, income from sale of scrap, notice pay, interest on delayed payment, income from film shooting and bond from staff. Hence, in these assessment years also, the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of these items only. Being so, the CIT(A) is justified in granting deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act in respect of royalty income, treating it as business income. Accordingly, this ground of appeals of the Revenue is dismissed. Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- the CIT passed order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act dated 30/03/2015 for re-considering the issue related to deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i)(b) of the I.T. Act.. This issue has already been decided by us in favour of the assessee in paras 3.3 and 3.4 of this order. In view of this, we hold that the CIT is not justified in exercising power u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act.
|