TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 140 (Delhi) which is misplaced. 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) has erred in allowing relief under section 43B of Rs. 24,93,706/- though the same was not paid during the previous year to AY under consideration. 4) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal." 3. Shri R.G. Nahar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that issues raised in ground Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal by the Revenue is squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 820/PN/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 decided by the Tribunal on 09-05-2016. There has been no change in the facts and circumstances in the assessment year under appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has allowed assessee's claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by following his own order dated 16-01-2015 for assessment year 2010-11. 4. In respect of ground No. 3 raised in the appeal by the Revenue the ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had made addition without apprecia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epot (ICD) and Container Freight Station (CFS) for handling bonded warehousing facilities on leasehold land of SIDCO. The ICD established by the assessee is located at about 3-4 Kms. away from the boundary wall of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and the unit commenced its activities in December, 2004. The unit is said to be modified under Customs Act as "Customs Area" for the purpose of storage, stuffing, destuffing and clearance of export and import. The assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) in view of Board‟s Notification No. F.No.205/17/2000/ITA-2 dated 23-06-2000. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee u/s. 80IA(4) on the ground that CBDT Circular dated 23-06-2000 (supra) has been withdrawn w.e.f. 16-12-2005 and the Board Port Trust has stated that the area from where assessee is operating does not form part of the „port‟. In first appeal the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the findings of Assessing Officer and denied the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) to the assessee. 14. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order of the CIT(A) is that the order relied on by the CIT(A) in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhave Sheva) Ltd. (Supra) has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon‟ble High court and the same is pending. The Ld. Departmental Representative fairly conceded that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal and to keep the matter alive the Revenue has filed this appeal since the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhave Sheva) Ltd. (Supra) has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon‟ble High Court. 4.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 346 ITR 140 and submitted that the Hon‟ble High Court in the above decision has held that the income of ICDs is eligible for deduction u/s.80IA(4)(i) of the I.T. Act. He also relied on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of United Liner Agencies of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. JCIT and vice versa order dated 28-06-2013 for A.Yrs 2006-07 and 2009-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "inland port or navigational channel in the sea". Thus, an "inland port" was always within the contemplation of the Legislature and it is treated specifically as a infrastructural facility. Therefore, to that extent Mr. Dastur is right in his submission." The Hon'ble Court further after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 346 ITR 140 (Delhi) concluded as under : "46. We have found that there is a specific reference made by the Delhi High Court to the communication dated 24th April, 2007, from the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. These are then classified as inland ports and categorised accordingly. There is a further communication from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as well. We do not find that a view different than the one taken by the Delhi High Court is possible. Bearing in mind the facilities that are extended and for purposes of loading, unloading, storage and warehousing of the goods that the facility is a infrastructure facility. That it has easy accessibility to the port and particularly the s....