TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be not covered for the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee had claimed that maintaining, managing, operating, upgrading, modernizing and developing the cargo terminal at the IGI Airport falls in the definition of infrastructural facility u/s 80IA and the reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hyderabad Bench in Menzis Air Cargo P. Ltd. vs. DCIT. ITA.No.421, 422 & 423/Hyd/2015 decided 6 October, 2016. However, Ld. AO was not satisfied and made following relevant observations in para 5.4 and 5.5 reproduced as under :- "5.4 The above submission of the assessee has been considered but not found to be tenable. This is because of the following facts. (a) The assessee was not doing the eligible business i.e. infrastructure development specified in section 80IA(4)(i) of the I.T.Act. (b) The company did not enter into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body. DIAL does not come under this category. (c) The agreement for upgradation and maintenance of cargo terminal was entered with different company from claiming deduction u/s 80IA. The assessee claims that DIAL is a statutory body and hence e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was asked to produce books of account alongwith supporting bills & vouchers for the expenses claimed. The Assessing Officer remarked that while perusing the books of account, bills & vouchers of some of the expenses he found them not properly vouched. When the Assessee was asked to explain the above condition, it was stated that some of the bills & vouchers were misplaced. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction on account of the expenses contested in the grounds of appeal. 11.2 The appellant has stated that it produced the ledger account of these expenses in a CD and explained that all the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively in the course of Appellant's business. It is submitted that the abovementioned claim of expenses may be allowed. 11.3 On careful consideration of the facts of the case, I find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenses on general remarks without pointing out any of the expenses found by him not vouched or vouchers in respect of which were bogus. The law does not permit disallowance of expenses on sweeping remarks having no reference to the context. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer tha the payments agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the matter on record and ground wise findings are as follows. 11. Ground no. 1. It can be appreciated that while determining the appeal preferred challenging 263 proceedings, the co-ordinate bench in case of assessee in ITA no. 3376/Del/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 18.02.2019 had primarily observed that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue about applicability of provision of Section 80IC and the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous, if there are two possible views of which one assessing officer has followed. In para 25 the Bench had observed as follows : "25. Before closing, on identical set of facts, the ld. PCIT issued a similar notice u/s 263 of the Act as he found that the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 14.03.2014 was erroneous, in as much as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for at 2011-12. The Tribunal considered the issue in ITA No. 3182/DEL/2016 and set aside the order of the ld. PCIT and restored that of the Assessing Officer. We find that the facts of assessment year 2011-12 are same as the facts of the year under consideration except the claim of deduction under Chapter VI is different in value. Sin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility u/s 80IA. According to the AO, the appellant has entered into an agreement with DIAL and not directly with AAI, and since DIAL is not a government, a local authority, or a statutory body, the second condition to claim deductions 80IA(4)(i) is not fulfilled in to case. The AO has referred to the websites of AAI and DIAL and observed that none of these websites mentioned tha DIAL is a statutory body. In this connection, the appellant has advanced the following 3 arguments in support of its claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act: (1) According to the proviso to section 80IA(4)(i), the agreement of DIAL with the AAI is sufficient compliance of the provision and a separate and independent agreement by the appellant with the AAI is not necessary. (2) Approvals received from various other departments of the government itself constitutes the agreement with the government, and (3) DIAL is a statutory body and accordingly, the Concession Agreement entered into between the appellant and DIAL is a sufficient complianc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration and maintenance of the cargo facility at IGIA, New Delhi. As held by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v A.L. Logistics (P) Ltd. 55 taxmann.com 283 such approvals obtained From the government authorities would be regarded as an agreement with the government for the purposes of section 801A(4)(i)(b). Considering the aforesaid legal position, I am of the view that the second condition of section 80IA(4) is satisfied in the appellant's case and accordingly, the said contention of the appellant is upheld. 7. The AO's third reasoning to deny the deduction u/s 80-IA is that "the agreement for upgradation and maintenance of the cargo terminal was entered with a different company from claiming deduction u/s 80IA." There is no further discussion about this point anywhere in the assessment order. The appellant has pointed out that the Concession Agreement has been entered into between DIAL, CHS and the appellant. Hence, the appellant submits that the said statement of the AO is factually incorrect. 7.1 In view of the factual and legal position discussed above, I am of the considered view that the appellant has satisfied all the conditions to claim deduction under secti....