2017 (4) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-11 respectively. 2.Qua the captioned appeals, the Revenue has framed the following questions of law for consideration by this Court in respect of the aforementioned AYs: For the Asst. Years : 2007-08 & 2010-11: i.Whether the Tribunal is correct in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA(4) on ''Container Freight Station'' even after the amendment to Section 80IA(4) whereby Explanation was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2002 had omitted the word ''any other public facility of similar nature''? ii.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct when the assessee had not developed the ''infrastructure facilities'' as it was only a custodian for the movement and handling of all containerize....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....012) 346 ITR 140 (Del.). 3.2.Mr.Senthil Kumar, who appears for the Revenue, says that insofar as the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. is concerned, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which has been admitted and numbered. The learned counsel says that the appeal has been accorded the number: C.A.8900 of 2012. 3.3.Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the view that the captioned appeals by the Revenue qua Question Nos.1 and 2 cannot be admitted. The two Division Benches of this Court have rejected the Revenue's appeals with regard to the similar questions of law. It is ordered accordingly. 4.Insofar as Question Nos.3 and 4 are conc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no dispute that there are common shareholders both in the assessee-company and Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, quite correctly, as noted by the Tribunal, though, the advance received by the assessee company may have been for the benefit of the aforementioned registered shareholders, it could only be assessed in the hands of those registered shareholders and not in the hands of the assseeee-company. 4.4.In our view, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act, no other conclusion can be reached. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Printwave Services P. Ltd., (2015) 373 ITR 665 (Mad.), has reached a somewhat similar conclusion. 5.Mr.Senthil Ku....