Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Versus M/s Ennore Cargo Container Terminal P. Ltd

2016 (6) TMI 552 - ITAT CHENNAI

Deduction u/s 80IA - whether Container Freight Station can be construed as Inland Port for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act? - Held that:- This issue was considered by the Delhi High Court in M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd (2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) after referring to the circular issued by the CBDT, the High Court found that Container Freight Station was notified by the Customs Authorities and also customs clearance took place in Container Freight Statio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e and found that Container Freight Station is an ‘infrastructure facility’ and the same would fall within the definition of ‘Inland Port’, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority - Decided in favour of assessee

Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22) - Held that:- In case the advance/loan was advanced for the benefit of the registered shareholder or any other person, still the same has to be assessed as deemed dividend in the name of the regi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o is holding 40% of the shares, therefore, as rightly submitted by the ld. DR there are common shareholders in both the companies. The advance received by the assessee-company may be for the benefit of the common shareholders who are holding the shares in the assessee-company. However, for the purpose of assessing the deemed dividend, it has to be assessed only in the hands of the registered shareholder for whose benefit the money was advanced. In the case before us, in fact, the money was advan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Assessee : Shri A.S Sriraman, Advocate ORDER Per N. R. S. Ganesan, Judicial Member The Revenue has filed the present appeals against the common order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai, dated 19.9.2014, for assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11. The assessee has also filed cross objection against the very same order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, we heard both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee together and dispose o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nland port has been included in the definition of infrastructure facility in addition to inland waterway and port. Therefore, according to the ld. DR, Container Freight Station facility done by the assessee is not covered by the definition given in sec. 80IA of the Act. According to the ld. DR, inland port was not defined either in the Income-tax Act, 1961 or in the Customs Act. Therefore, according to the ld. DR, the meaning has to be taken as understood in common parlance. According to the ld. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mitted that while notifying Container Freight Station as an infrastructure facility , it was classified under any other public facility , therefore, the intention of the Board was not to treat the Container Freight Station as inland port for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 3. Referring to the order of the CIT(A), the ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) by following his own order in assessee s own case for assessment year 2009-10, allowed the claim of the assessee. Referring t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act by following his own order in assessee s own case for assessment year 2009-10, therefore, no interference in the order of the CIT(A) is called for. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The only issue arises for consideration is whether Container Freight Station can be construed as Inland Port for the purpose of allowing deduction u/s 80IA of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Stations are infrastructure facility within the meaning of Inland Ports . The CIT(A), by following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd(supra), directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Since the Delhi High Court considered similar issue and found that Container Freight Station is an infrastructure facility and the same would fall within the definition of Inland Port , this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

any. The common shareholders are Shri Xavier Britto and Smt. Vimalarani Britto. The ld. DR further submitted that M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd. has substantial reserves as on 31.3.2010, therefore, the amount received by the assessee as capital advance to the extent of ₹ 1,09,50,000/- is nothing but deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was a business relationship between the assesseecompany and M/s Inde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the ld. DR, the CIT(A), in fact, placed his reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Gopal Clothing Company P. Ltd, 350 ITR 67, and CIT vs Ankitech P. Ltd., 340 ITR 14. According to the ld. DR, the Revenue has filed appeal against the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Gopal Clothing Company P. Ltd (supra) and M/s Ankitech P. Ltd (supra) and the same is pending. Since admittedly, the assessee has received capital advance from a company where there are common sha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

P. Ltd., therefore, even assuming that the capital advance received by the assessee is a deemed dividend, it has to be assessed only in the hands of the shareholder for whose benefit the money was received. Since the assessee-company is not a shareholder of M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd., according to the ld. Counsel, there cannot be any addition in the hands of the assessee as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Offi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

contention of the Revenue is that there are common shareholders for the assessee-company and M/s Indev Logistics P. Ltd., therefore, the capital advance received by the assessee has to be assessed as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee-company. 10. We have carefully gone through the provisions of sec. 2(22)(e) of the Act. Any advance or loan received by the registered shareholder has to be treated as deemed dividend in their hands. In case the advance/loan was advanced for the benefit o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version