Tribunal Upholds Assessee's Tax Deductions, Rejects Revenue's Appeal

DCIT, Circle-3 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd.

DCIT, Circle-3 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance under section 14A from book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction under section 80IA(4):
The Revenue contested the allowance of deduction under section 80IA(4) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The assessee, a company engaged in developing, operating, and maintaining a Container Freight Station (CFS) at Nhava Sheva, Mumbai, claimed this deduction. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, arguing that the agreement with CIDCO was not a BOT/BOLT agreement and that CFS is not an infrastructure facility as per section 80IA(4). The AO also noted that the assessee did not obtain the necessary certificate from the competent authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee had been allowed this deduction since the assessment year 2002-03 and that CFS qualifies as an infrastructure facility under section 80IA(4). The Tribunal upheld this view, citing that the deduction, once allowed, cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years if there is no change in facts. The Tribunal also referenced several judicial decisions, including CIT v/s Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. and CIT v/s Paul Brothers, to support its conclusion.

2. Disallowance under section 14A:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance made under section 14A, arguing that the assessee should have disallowed expenses related to earning exempt income. The assessee contended that no exempt income was earned during the relevant assessment year, making the disallowance hypothetical. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT, which held that no disallowance under section 14A should be made if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the disallowance, thus dismissing the Revenue's ground.

3. Disallowance under section 14A from book profit under section 115JB:
The Revenue argued that the disallowance under section 14A should also apply to the book profit calculation under section 115JB. The Tribunal noted that this issue was consequential to the second issue. Since the disallowance under section 14A was not justified, it could not be added back to the book profit under section 115JB. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing this ground as well.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decisions on all grounds. The Tribunal emphasized that the deduction under section 80IA(4) was rightly allowed as CFS qualifies as an infrastructure facility, and the disallowance under section 14A was not applicable as no exempt income was earned by the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance under section 14A could not be added to the book profit under section 115JB.