TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e identical and similar to the facts in earlier assessment years ( AY 2008-09) as dealt with by this tribunal. We further find that the AO has ought to have followed the said decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case. The AO made additions only on the reason that the matter is still pending in Hon ble High Court, ignoring the fact that the Hon ble High Court had already decided the issues in AY 2008-09 in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.576 to 578/Mum/2018, I.T.A. No.6468/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-1-2020 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, AM For the Appellant : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, DR For the Respondent : Shri Satish Mody, AR ORDER PER BENCH: The present four Appeals ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on any inland waterway, river or canal and therefore that cannot be classified as Inland Port for the purpose of section 80IA(4)(i). (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred allowing the deduction of ₹ 4,65,58,515/- u/s 80IA(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the profit earned from the operation of a Inland Container Depot (ICD) without appreciating that the benefit of deduction under the said section is not at all intended to any Inland Container Depot/Container Freight Station; and even otherwise for being eligible to any such deduction, there ought to be an agreement executed between the assessee company and the Government for developing, operating and maintain the infrastructure fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts made to the various assessee group companies. However, the assessee filed its return of income on 29-09-2012 declaring income of ₹ 14,42,95,980/-, which had been reduced to Rs. Nil after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4). Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) of the Act calling for the assessee for specific information, as mentioned therein. In response, the AR of the assessee appeared and filed details as called for in support of the said return as filed by the assessee. The AO found that the main object of the assessee company is to construct/develop/acquire and manage container yard, inland container depot, freight station, ware housing, packaging, distributing and providing complete logistics solutions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dt. 28-03-2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y 2010-11. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the A.O the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) considering the detailed submissions of assessee and following his earlier order and the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s case for AY 2008-09 allowed impugned deduction by holding that the other income of ₹ 12,97,713/- ₹ 4,65,58,515/- consisting of interest on margin money for BG/Bond, scrap sales and EDI charges and profits earned from operation of container depot are eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has also relied on various judgments, which are available in his order dt. 01-11-2017 for the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with by this tribunal. We further find that the AO has ought to have followed the said decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in assessee s own case. The AO made additions only on the reason that the matter is still pending in Hon ble High Court, ignoring the fact that the Hon ble High Court had already decided the issues in AY 2008-09 in favour of assessee. Similar issue was dealt by Co-ordinate bench in AY 2009-10, relying on the decision of AY 2008-09, ITA No. 4466/Mum/2017. Relevant portion of order dt. 31-12-2018 is reproduced herein below:- Order dt.31-12-2018 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on records. We find that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and anr. [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom) while dismissing the Revenue's Appeal. This issue therefore stands concluded in favour of the respondent assessee. 6.1 Facts being identical, we follow the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and uphold the order of the Ld. 7. Having examined the relevant documents available on record we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee of deduction u/s 80IA(4] on account of FDR interest of ₹ 45,086/-, scrap sales of ₹ 2,67,591/- and EDI charges of ₹ 1,27,315/-. In view of above, the CIT-A was correct in allowing the same. We uphold his order on this count. Thus, the grounds raised by the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
