TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of Jamnagar, Kakinada and Dahej ports being in consonance with the view expressed by ITAT in assessee s own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order. As far as Nagapattinam port is concerned, on perusal of the certificate issued by the Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a copy of which is at page 68 of the paper book, it is evident that assessee has entered into contract with CPCL for O M of the port. Therefore, the allegation of the AO that assessee is not engaged in operation and maintenance activity is without any basis. It is further observed that AO while denying assessee s claim of deduction has observed that nature of work carried out by assessee cannot be considered as O M. The activities carried on by assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Revenue by : Shri T. Venkat Reddy Assessee by : Shri T.S. Ajai O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: These appeals by the department are directed against separate orders of ld. CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad both dated, 30/06/2014 for the AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. Ground raised by the department, which are common in both the appeals, are in relation to the decision of ld. CIT(A) in allowing assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 3. As the facts are more or less common in both the appeals, we will refer to the facts as involved in AY 2009-10 being ITA No. 1615/H/14. 4. Briefly the facts are, assessee a company is engaged in the business of operation and maintenance (O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar as assesee s claim that it is engaged in O M of infrastructure facility, AO observed that assessee has merely entered into contract offering certain specialized services to other corporate entities maintaining and operating the infrastructure facility. AO observed that as per section 80IA(4), one of the condition for claiming deduction is existence of agreement with central govt. or state govt. or local authority or statutory body. However, in assessee s case, there is no such agreement and assessee has only entered into agreement with some private companies. Though in course of assessment proceeding, assessee stated before AO that ITAT in assessee s own case has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for AYs 2000-01 and 2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by port authorities, observed that assessee had entered into contract agreement with the port on 05/03/08 towards work of marine operations and maintenance of crude oil and POL products at Chidambarnar Oil Jetty of CPCL within the port limits of Nagapattinam, which is effective from March 2008 to December 2011. Having considered such certificate, he concluded that assessee s claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of Nagapattinam port is also allowable. However, in respect of Kariakal port, since no such certificate could be produced by assessee, he did not allow deduction u/s 80IA. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Ld. DR relying upon the reasoning of AO submitted that assessee having not fulfilled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t AO while denying assessee s claim of deduction has observed that nature of work carried out by assessee cannot be considered as O M. However, as could be seen, ITAT in assessee s own case for AY 2000-01 and 2001-02 in ITA Nos. 1049 1050/Hyd/2003 dated 05/02/2008, which is the first year of claim of deduction u/s 80IA, has observed that such allegation of AO is not well founded. ITAT categorically observed that the activities carried on by assessee being in the nature of O M of infrastructure facility, it is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4). Though the aforesaid observation of ITAT is in respect of Jamnagar, Kakinada and Dahej ports, but, since the facts in relation to other ports are also more or less similar, these observations of IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
