TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry of Commerce and Industry confirming that the ICDs are Inland Ports, fortifies the claim of the respondent herein. Though both the Notification and communication are not binding on CBDT to decide whether ICDs can be termed as Inland Ports within the meaning of Section 80-IA the appellant herein is unable to put forward any reasonable explanation as to why these notifications and communication should not be relied to hold ICDs as Inland Ports. Unless shown otherwise, it cannot be held that the term 'Inland Ports' is used differently under Section 80-IA. All these facts taken together clear the position beyond any doubt that the ICDs are Inland Ports and subject to the provisions of the Section and deduction can be claimed for the income earned out of these Depots. However, the actual computation is to be made in accordance with the different Notifications issued by the Customs department with regard to different ICDs located at different places. Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer to make the computation of disallowance u/s. 8D(2)(iii) of the Act by excluding the investment which have not earned any exempt income during the year in the computation in accordance. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee-company had claimed deduction of ₹ 75,37,30,223/- u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. As per Form No. 10CCB, the date of commencement of operation/activity of the undertaking was January 2009. The impugned assessment year is the 4th one, wherein the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, the first year being AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that Container Freight Station (CFS) is not an eligible infrastructure facility as provided in Explanation to section 80IA(4) of the Act. As per the AO the same is neither a port nor an inland port as mentioned in the said Explanation. Therefore, the AO denied the above claim of deduction u/s 80IA made by the assessee. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 6110 6111/Mum/2014 dated 04.08.2016 and directed the AO to allow deduction of ₹ 75,37,30,223/- u/s 80IA of the Act. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the AO. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the above issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the judgment dated 24.04.2018 of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CIT v. M/s Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the IT Act, the appellant herein is unable to put forward any reasonable explanation as to why these notifications and communication should not be relied to hold ICDs as Inland Ports. Unless shown otherwise, it cannot be held that the term 'Inland Ports' is used differently under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. All these facts taken together clear the position beyond any doubt that the ICDs are Inland Ports and subject to the provisions of the Section and deduction can be claimed for the income earned out of these Depots. However, the actual computation is to be made in accordance with the different Notifications issued by the Customs department with regard to different ICDs located at different places. 23. In light of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference and, hence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6.1 Facts being identical, we follow the above decision and dismiss the 1st ground of appeal. 7. The 2nd ground of appeal On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of expenses attributable to exempt inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41,37,91,435 Less : Investment in Mutual Funds from which on exempt income is earned (Growth Funds) - 21,12,19,947 Investments on which Rule 8D(2)(iii) is to be applied 23,30,69,473 20,25,71,488 Average Value of Investments Rs.21,78,20,480 0.5% of Average Value of Investments Rs.10,89,102 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In respect of the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), we find from audited accounts that the assessee had more own funds than investments. Therefore, following the decision in HDFC Banks Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. (supra) the disallowance of ₹ 18,05,184/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is deleted. 11.1 Regarding the disallowance of ₹ 16,17,152/- made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii), we may refer here to the latest decision of the ITAT D Bench, Mumbai in assessee s own case for AY 2012-13 (ITA No. 5606/Mum/2016) which reads as under: 15. As regards the disallowance u/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. In the case of ACIT v. Vireet Investment [2017] 82 taxmann.com415 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB), it is held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A read with rule 8D. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of ₹ 34,22,236/- made by the AO to the book profit shown by the assessee u/s 115JB of the Act. 17. The 3rd ground of cross objection : On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer of facility usage charges of ₹ 8,93,000/- while computing deduction under section 8IA and thus reducing the Assessee s claim under section 80IA by ₹ 8,93,000/-. 18. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had shown rental income from immovable property amounting to ₹ 8,93,000/-. The assessee had included the above amount in profit and gains from business while computing deduction u/s 80IA. In response to a query raised by the AO to justify the above claim of including this income for computing deduction u/s 80IA, the assessee filed a reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , held that as all the four subsidies were revenue receipts, which were reimbursed to the assessee for elements of cost relating to manufacture or sale of their products, there could certainly be said to be a direct nexus between profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or business, and reimbursement of such subsidies. It held that the subsidies were only in order to reimburse, wholly or partially, costs actually incurred by the assessee in the manufacturing and selling of its products. In the instant case, the assessee has received ₹ 2,00,000/- as rent from Vodafone India Pvt. Ltd on account of usage of its CFS area for setting up mobile tower. It also received ₹ 6,93,000/- as service charges for providing office space area, furniture utility facility to customers in CFS area. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has not filed before the AO the relevant contracts and connected data with regard to the above claim. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of the AO for making an order afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We direct the assessee to file the connected documents/evidence before the AO. 22. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
