Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (7) TMI 210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , dated 18/2/2015, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Chennai, ordered as hereunder:- "4. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,02,65,882 under Section 80-IA (4) holding that the appellant's facility cannot be defined as Infrastructure facility or fit into the definition of either Port or Inland Port as per the provisions of the Act. The AO referred to the provisions of Section 80-IA and stated that all the defined infrastructure facility will not be eligible to claim deduction but which fulfills all the conditions set out in Section 80-IA 4 (i) (a), (b) & (c) will only be eligible. He also referred to Circular No.717 dated 14/8/1995 and stated that the Board's circular also reveals that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i) i.e., assessee did not enter into any agreement with the Govt. c). the assessee does not own any immovable property. The appellant further stated that on similar issue in appellant's own case for A.Y.2009-10 the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai vide ITA No.469/Mds/2014 dt.14/7/2014 has decided the issue in favour of the appellant and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1031 to 2014 dated 23/12/204 [2015-TIOL-93-HC-MAD-IT] and requested to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,02,65,882. 4.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the Id.AR. I have gone through the decisions relied on by the Id.AR. Since on the similar issue in the appellant's own case for A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in not considering the amendment to Section 80IA(4) Explanation which was introduced with effect from 1/4/2002 whereby the word any other public facility of similar nature was omitted and thereby wrongly allowed a deduction under Section 80IA(4) on income from Container Freight Station" 4. At the time when the instant Tax Case Appeal came up for admission, Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax fairly submitted that in the case of the very same assessee, in Tax Case Appeal No.1031 of 2014, between Commissioner of Income Tax and A.L Logistics Pvt. Ltd) reported in (2015) 374 ITR 0609 (Mad), the above substantial questions of law have been answered against the revenue, and that the said decision is under challenge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tax & CIT followed in A.L.Logistics P Ltd's case are stated to be squarely applicable to the case on hand and thus, following the same, CESTAT, Madras, vide order, dated 16/12/2015 has dismissed the revenue appeal. 8. In Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another {(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, summarised as hereunder:- "45. Having thus made the law clear, the case at hand poses no problem for solution. The earlier order of the High Court was sought to be subjected to exercise of appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the State of Kerala wherein it did not succeed. The prayer contained in the petition seeking leave to appeal to this Court was found devoid of any merits and hence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on'ble Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal and the same having been converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not entertain a review petition. The High Court also cannot reverse and modify the order impugned before the Supreme Court. But the judgment rendered by the High Court is not erased. The principles of Law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another {(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359}, with due respect is not in strict sense be applied to the facts and law in hand. The case relates to exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court, when Civil Appeal is pending in the Apex Court. We are not exercising such powers in the case on hand. 10. Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates