Appeal partly allowed for relief on container income & depreciation. Exemption claim remanded for fresh adjudication.

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant relief to the appellant for the addition of container income in subsequent assessment years. The appellant's claim for depreciation was allowed based on consistency with a previous decision. The claim of exemption under section 10(34) was remanded for fresh adjudication. The adjustment of carry forward of excess application of income was also remanded for further examination. However, the Tribunal upheld the charging of interest under section 234D, as per the Bombay High Court's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income as business income under section 11(4) vs. income derived from property held under section 11(1)(a).
2. Addition of container income of Rs. 24,67,000/-.
3. Claim of depreciation as application of income.
4. Claim of exemption under section 10(34).
5. Adjustment of carry forward of excess application of income from earlier years.
6. Charging of interest under section 234D.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Income:
The appellant did not press this ground, leading to its dismissal. The issue involved whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action of assessing the appellant's income as business income under section 11(4) instead of as income derived from property held under section 11(1)(a).

2. Addition of Container Income:
The appellant objected to the addition of Rs. 24,67,000/- for the assessment year 2008-2009, arguing it was already offered for taxation in AY 2009-2010. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and directed the AO to grant relief in subsequent assessment years after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

3. Claim of Depreciation:
The appellant claimed depreciation of Rs. 16,83,16,468/- as application income. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the appellant's case for AY 2006-2007, where it was held that there was no double deduction, and the appellant was entitled to the deduction of depreciation. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal allowed this ground.

4. Claim of Exemption under Section 10(34):
The appellant claimed an exemption of Rs. 10,42,71,151/- under section 10(34). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issue and had not passed a reasoned order. The matter was remanded to the AO to decide afresh, considering relevant precedents and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

5. Adjustment of Carry Forward of Excess Application of Income:
The appellant sought to adjust the carry forward of excess application of income from earlier years. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision for AY 2006-2007, where the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the eligibility for tax exemption based on the registration under section 12AA. Since assessments for earlier years were still pending, the Tribunal remanded this issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

6. Charging of Interest under Section 234D:
The appellant contested the interest charged under section 234D. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which held that Explanation 2 to section 234D applies to pending proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the AO's action of charging interest under section 234D, rejecting the appellant's ground.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for the AO to reconsider specific issues while providing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal upheld the AO's action regarding the charging of interest under section 234D.

---