9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 975X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven though activities undertaken by the assessee do not fall within clause (d) of the Explanation to section 80-IA(4) defining the term infrastructure facilities?" 2.1. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company incorporated in the year 2004 and is engaged in the business of running a container yard, inland container depot (ICD), container freight station (CFS), bonded warehouse etc. The above project of the assessee-company is spread over 14 acres of land and handles the stock and storage of containers and equipped to operate, move, stuffed and destuffed loaded and empty containers and connected to Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) online. The operations of the ICD/CFS of the assessee-company include broadly the clearance of goods for home use, warehousing, temporary admissions, re-export, temporary storage for inward transit/ outright export, transhipments etc. The ICD/CFS of the assessee-company started its operations in year 2004. 2.2. The assessee filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year on September 30, 2008 declaring nil income. However, the assessee has paid total tax liability of Rs. 44,63,333 under section 115JB. In the audit re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "6.1. I have gone through the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and have also considered the written submissions made in the matter during the course of appellate proceedings. 6.2. The authorised representative of the appellant, in addition to the written submissions filed has vehemently argued that the issue is now fully covered in their favour by the judicial pronouncement of High Court of Delhi in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT in I.T.A. Nos. 1411/2009, 967/2011 and 968/2011 vide order dated May 11, 2012 [2012] 346 ITR 140 (Delhi). 6.3.The authorised representative of the appellant has also relied on the decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT I. T. A. Nos. 5018 to 5022 and 5059, for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10 rendered vide order dated July 6, 2012 [2012] 18 ITR (Trib) 106 (Mum) [SB]. 6.4.The autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, the Income-tax Appellate Tri bunal Special Bench Mumbai, while dealing with an identical issue, vide their decision dated July 6, 2012 has held that (page 158)- "We have considered the facts of the cases and submissions made before us. It may be mentioned that one of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the assessee is that the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 346 ITR 140 (Delhi) is not based on any of the circulars issued by the port authorities, however, the container freight station the assessee has been granted such certificate. The certificate mentions that the container freight station carries on port related activities, and it may be considered as an extendable activity of the port related activities. It is clarified that the container freight station has not been built on BOT or BOLT Scheme and that it is situated on land which does not belong to the port. The letters written by port trust to the assessee also state that the matter has been referred to the Income-tax Department. The Department has clarified that an inland container depot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Bench 'C' Mumbai in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Seva) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT I.T.A. No. 7055/MUM/ 2011 dated August 31, 2012 for the assessment year 2008-09, while relying in the Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2012] 18 ITR (Trib) 106 (Mum) [SB] it has been held by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as under : 'In this view of the situation, respectfully following the aforementioned decision of Special Bench we allow the appeal filed by the assessee and it is held that the assessee is entitled to get deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act.' 6.9. It has been further contended by the AR of the appellant that the above decisions of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Special Bench as well in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 2008-09 by the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have been rendered after having duly considered the facts relating to the with drawal of certificate by the JNPT and the clarification issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is that the order relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Seva) Ltd. has been challenged by the Revenue before the hon'ble High court and the same is pending. The learned 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 (Nhava Seva) Ltd. has been challenged by the Revenue before the hon'ble High Court. 4.1. Learned counsel for the assessee filed the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 346 ITR 140 (Delhi) and submitted that the hon'ble High Court in the above decision has held that the income of ICDs is eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4)(i) of the Income-tax 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. v. Joint CIT and vice versa order dated June ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
