TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the grounds of challenge, vide order, dated 18/2/2015, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Chennai, ordered as hereunder:- "4. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of deduction of Rs. 3,02,65,882 under Section 80-IA (4) holding that the appellant's facility cannot be defined as Infrastructure facility or fit into the definition of either Port or Inland Port as per the provisions of the Act. The AO referred to the provisions of Section 80-IA and stated that all the defined infrastructure facility will not be eligible to claim deduction but which fulfills all the conditions set out in Section 80-IA 4 (i) (a), (b) & (c) will only be eligible. He also referred to Circular No.717 dated 14/8/1995 and stated that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' or 'inland port' b) that the conditions prescribed u/s. 80IA (4) (i) i.e., assessee did not enter into any agreement with the Govt. c). the assessee does not own any immovable property. The appellant further stated that on similar issue in appellant's own case for A.Y.2009-10 the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai vide ITA No.469/Mds/2014 dt.14/7/2014 has decided the issue in favour of the appellant and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.1031 to 2014 dated 23/12/204 [2015-TIOL-93-HC-MAD-IT] and requested to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,02,65,882. 4.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the Id.AR. I have gone ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly when the Assessee has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under Section 80IA(4) (i) (b)? (iv). Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the amendment to Section 80IA(4) Explanation which was introduced with effect from 1/4/2002 whereby the word any other public facility of similar nature was omitted and thereby wrongly allowed a deduction under Section 80IA(4) on income from Container Freight Station" 4. At the time when the instant Tax Case Appeal came up for admission, Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax fairly submitted that in the case of the very same assessee, in Tax Case Appeal No.1031 of 2014, between Commissioner of Income Tax and A.L Logistics Pvt. Ltd) reported in (2015) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mission of the instant appeal. 7. Admittedly, facts and law, decided in Container Corporation of India Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & CIT followed in A.L.Logistics P Ltd's case are stated to be squarely applicable to the case on hand and thus, following the same, CESTAT, Madras, vide order, dated 16/12/2015 has dismissed the revenue appeal. 8. In Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another {(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, summarised as hereunder:- "45. Having thus made the law clear, the case at hand poses no problem for solution. The earlier order of the High Court was sought to be subjected to exercise of appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere cannot be any impediment in following the said decisions to cases arising out of similar set of facts and law. However, when a petition is filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal and the same having been converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not entertain a review petition. The High Court also cannot reverse and modify the order impugned before the Supreme Court. But the judgment rendered by the High Court is not erased. The principles of Law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another {(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359}, with due respect is not in strict sense be applied to the facts and law in hand. The case relates to ex....