TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and telecommunication facilities necessary during the construction stage or operational phase for the project facilities and services in accordance with the agreement. The assessee was vested with the authority of developing and providing infrastructural facilities for ports. The container terminal developed was a part of Chennai Port. The term Port is mentioned as an infrastructural facilities in the explanation (d) to Sec.80IA(4). The term port as defined in CBDT Circular No. 10 dated 16.12.2005 includes structures at the ports for storage, loading and unloading etc. The project fulfilled all the stipulate conditions. The gross revenue was split at source level between the assessee and CITPL. The same is further supported by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 2927/Chny/2018 ITA Nos.2928/Chny/2018 ITA No.3117/Chny/2018 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2022 - HON BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM Assessee by : S/Shri G. Baskar I. Dinesh (Advocates)-Ld. Ars Revenue by : Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) Ld. Sr. DR ORDER Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The assessee is in further appeal for Assessment Years (AY) 2012- 13 2013-14 whereas the revenue is in further appeal for AY 2012-13. The impugned order is common order for both the years. First, we take up cross-appeals for AY 2012-13 which arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai [CIT(A)] dated 23.08.2018 in the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be as under. Assessment Proceedings 3. The assessee is a Central Public Sector Enterprises functioning under the direct control and supervision of Ministry of the Union Government and administered by Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It was assessed for the year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 31.03.2015. The assessee is the sole authority to control and manage Ports at Chennai. The assessee developed a new container terminal within the port premises jointly with Chennai International Terminals Private Ltd. (CITPL) which was commissioned. Against the same, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA (4) for Rs.31.27 Crores and was required by Ld. AO to demonstrate the fulfillment of conditions of the statutory provisions. Though th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd container terminal was a new infrastructural facility and was not in existence prior to its development by the assessee jointly with CITPL as per the terms of license agreement dated 07.03.2007. Thus, the condition that infrastructural facility should start its operation on or after 01.04.1995 was duly satisfied. The container terminal developed was a part of Chennai Port. The term Port is mentioned as an infrastructural facilities in the explanation (d) to Sec.80IA(4). The term port as defined in CBDT Circular No. 10 dated 16.12.2005 includes structures at the ports for storage, loading and unloading etc. This Circular does not in any way restrict the term port to only the structure at the terminal of a port but also clarifies th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and utilities including water, electricity and telecommunication facilities necessary during the construction stage or operational phase for the project facilities and services in accordance with the agreement. Further the assessee was vested with the authority of developing and providing infrastructural facilities for ports. The container terminal developed was a part of Chennai Port. The term Port is mentioned as an infrastructural facilities in the explanation (d) to Sec.80IA(4). The term port as defined in CBDT Circular No. 10 dated 16.12.2005 includes structures at the ports for storage, loading and unloading etc. The project fulfilled all the stipulate conditions. The gross revenue was split at source level between the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance u/r 8D(2)(iii) for Rs.133.50 Lacs. However, while computing the assessed loss, Ld. AO had made disallowance only for Rs.26.45 Lacs. The same has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 8. The limited prayer of Ld. AR is that only investment yielding investments are to be considered while computing disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii). Accepting the same, we direct Ld. AO to re-compute disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) by considering only those investments which have actually yielded any exempt income during the year. The disallowance u/r 8D(2)(i) 8D(2)(ii) stand confirmed. The suo-motu disallowance as offered by the assessee shall be adjusted from the aggregate disallowance. Finally, the income / l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
