Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal confirms deduction eligibility for infrastructure facilities under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>ACIT, Panvel Circle, Raigad Versus JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd.</h3> ACIT, Panvel Circle, Raigad Versus JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd. - [2014] 34 ITR (Trib) 598 (ITAT [Pune]) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of 'infrastructure facilities' under section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Applicability of judicial precedents to the assessee's case.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Eligibility of the Assessee for Deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961The primary issue in the appeals was whether the assessee, engaged in running a container yard, inland container depot (ICD), container freight station (CFS), and bonded warehouse, was entitled to a deduction under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed this deduction on the grounds that its operations constituted an 'inland port,' which is recognized as an infrastructure facility under section 80-IA(4).Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Infrastructure Facilities' under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the deduction, arguing that the assessee did not meet the conditions outlined in section 80-IA(4), specifically the requirement to enter into an agreement with the Central or State Government or a local authority for developing, operating, and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. The AO also contended that the term 'inland port' did not encompass ICDs or CFSs, as per the definitions provided by the Income-tax Act.Issue 3: Applicability of Judicial Precedents to the Assessee's CaseThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overruled the AO's decision, relying heavily on judicial precedents. The Commissioner referenced the Mumbai Special Bench Tribunal's decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and the Mumbai Bench Tribunal's decision in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Seva) v. Asst. CIT, which categorized CFSs as inland ports eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4). The Commissioner also noted the Delhi High Court's ruling in Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, which supported the classification of ICDs as inland ports.Tribunal's Ruling:The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the consistency of judicial precedents that favored the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was primarily to keep the matter alive, pending a decision from the High Court on similar cases. However, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from established jurisprudence, which recognized CFSs and ICDs as infrastructure facilities eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, affirming the assessee's eligibility for the deduction under section 80-IA(4). The decision was pronounced in the open court on August 21, 2014.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found