2023 (3) TMI 51 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Affirms Tribunal's Decision on Income Tax Act Section 80IA(4) Interpretation for 2011-12

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the interpretation of section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year ... Deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) - Necessity of certificate from the concerned Port Authority certifying that the structure was a part of the Port - assessee is a State Government undertaking which had set up an Inland Container Depot (ICD) and Container Freight Station (CFS) in the vicinity of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) - AO denied the benefit on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish a certificate from the concerned Port Authority certifying that the structure was a part of the Port, which it considered mandatory in view of the Board’s notification dated 23rd June 2000 followed by Circular No.10 of 2005 dated 16th December 2005 - ITAT allowed deduction - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, in reference to the assessment year 2009-10, allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. JWC Logistics Park P. Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 975 - ITAT PUNE] This finding of the Tribunal was followed even for the instant assessment year 2011-12. It needs to be mentioned that an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal [2016 (5) TMI 1487 - ITAT PUNE] in regard to the assessment year 2009-10, also came to be dismissed [2019 (9) TMI 1692 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] following the views expressed in Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Since a view has already been taken in Continental Warehousing Corporation (Supra) on the same issue and since there is no change in either the facts or the law, we are of the opinion that the questions proposed do not given rise to any substantial question of law. Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Requirement of certification from Port Authority for claiming deduction.3. Impact of withdrawn Board's notification on deduction eligibility.4. Reliance on precedent judgments for determining deduction eligibility.5. Compliance with conditions for claiming deduction under section 80IA(4).Interpretation of section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, regarding the assessment year 2011-12. The primary issue was whether the assessee was eligible for the deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act, amounting to Rs.6,33,26,452. The Tribunal had previously allowed a similar claim for the assessment year 2009-10, citing a judgment in a related case. The High Court noted that since a consistent view had been taken on the issue, and there were no changes in facts or law, no substantial question of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Requirement of certification from Port Authority for claiming deduction:The Assessing Officer had denied the deduction claimed by the assessee on the grounds that a certificate from the concerned Port Authority certifying the structure as part of the Port was not furnished. This denial was based on the Board's notification followed by a subsequent circular. However, the Tribunal, in line with its decision for the earlier assessment year, upheld the deduction claim, considering the judgment in a relevant case. The High Court, relying on precedent judgments, found no substantial question of law in this regard and dismissed the appeal.Impact of withdrawn Board's notification on deduction eligibility:The denial of the deduction was also linked to the withdrawal of the Board's notification through a subsequent circular. Despite this, the Tribunal and the High Court, following consistent views from previous judgments, upheld the deduction claim for the assessee. The withdrawal of the notification did not impact the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act.Reliance on precedent judgments for determining deduction eligibility:The Tribunal and the High Court relied on precedent judgments, including the decision of the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court in specific cases, to support the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction claimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The consistent application of legal principles from previous judgments formed the basis for upholding the deduction claim in the present case.Compliance with conditions for claiming deduction under section 80IA(4):The final issue revolved around whether the assessee had fulfilled all the conditions necessary for claiming the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision and supported by relevant judgments, concluded that the assessee had indeed met the requirements for the deduction. The High Court concurred with this assessment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.