Circumstances Of The Case And In Law, The Itat,Pune Has Erred In Relying On The Decision Ofcontainer Corporation Of India Ltd v. Acit(2012) 346 Itr 140 (Delhi)?

Digitallysigned bySHRADDHASHRADDHAKAMLESHKAMLESHTALEKARTALEKARDate:2023.01.0919:13:14+0530 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 810 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6,4[th] Floor, Aayakar Sadan,Bodhi Tower,Salisbery Park, Gultekdi,Pune-411037VersusMaharashtra State Warehousing Corporation,583/B, Market Yard,Gultekdi, Pune 411 037. ]]]]]… Appellant]]]]]]..Respondent PAN : AABCM3988MA.Y. 2011-12 **** Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for appellant. Ms.Rucha Vaidya i/b Ms.Farzeen Khambatta, Advocate forrespondent. ***** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR &KAMAL KHATA, JJ. 5[th ]JANUARY, 20239[th] JANUARY 2023 RESERVED ON : PRONOUNCED ON : J U D G M E N T PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J. 1.This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) has been preferred against the orderdated 28[th] July 2017 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Pune (“Tribunal”), relevant to the assessment year 2011-12, whereby, the appeal of the revenue hasbeen dismissed. 2.The following substantial questions of law have been framed for our consideration : (i)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune(ITAT) has erred in holding that theassessee was eligible for deductionclaimed under section 80IA(4) of the Act,amounting to Rs.6,33,26,452/-? (ii)Wehther on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT,Pune has not appreciated the facts fndingmade by the A.O. that Jawaharlal Nehru PortTrust (JNPT) has declined to issue a certifcatethat Warehousing of the assessee is part of thePort? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT,Pune has not appreciated that Board’snotifcation dated 30.06.2000 relied by theassessee has been subsequently withdrawnthroughCircularNo.10/2005dated16.12.2005? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the 3. circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT,Pune has erred in relying on the decision ofContainer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. ACIT(2012) 346 ITR 140 (Delhi)? (v)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT,Pune was justifed in holding that the assesseehas fulflled all the conditions laid down for thededuction claimed under section 80IA(4) of theAct? Briefy stated the material facts are as under : (a)The assessee is a State Governmentundertaking which had set up an Inland ContainerDepot (ICD) and Container Freight Station (CFS) inthe vicinity of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT).In its return of income, the assessee claimed adeduction in terms of section 80IA(4) of the Act. (b)The Assessing Offcer, however, denied thebeneft on the ground that the assessee had failedto furnish a certifcate from the concerned PortAuthority certifying that the structure was a part ofthe Port, which it considered mandatory in view ofthe Board’s notifcation dated 23[rd] June 2000 followed by Circular No.10 of 2005 dated 16[th]December 2005. 4.A similar claim was also denied to the assessee forthe year 2009-10, for similar reasons. The Tribunal, inreference to the assessment year 2009-10, allowed theappeal of the assessee by placing reliance upon thejudgment in the case of Assistant Commissioner ofIncome-tax Vs. JWC Logistics Park P. Ltd. [1] 5.This fnding of the Tribunal was followed even forthe instant assessment year 2011-12. It needs to bementioned that an appeal fled by the revenue against theorder of the Tribunal, being Appeal No.886 of 2017, inregard to the assessment year 2009-10, also came to bedismissed vide order dated 24[th] September 2019 followingthe views expressed by Delhi High Court in Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner ofIncome Tax [2] and this Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [3]. 5.This fnding of the Tribunal was followed even forthe instant assessment year 2011-12. It needs to bementioned that an appeal fled by the revenue against theorder of the Tribunal, being Appeal No.886 of 2017, inregard to the assessment year 2009-10, also came to bedismissed vide order dated 24[th] September 2019 followingthe views expressed by Delhi High Court in Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner ofIncome Tax [2] and this Court in Commissioner of IncomeTax Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [3]. 1[2014] 34 ITR (Trib) 598 (ITAT, Pune) 2(2012)346 ITR 140 (Delhi) 3(2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom) 6.Since a view has already been taken in ContinentalWarehousing Corporation (Supra) on the same issue andsince there is no change in either the facts or the law, weare of the opinion that the questions proposed do notgiven rise to any substantial question of law. 7.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [ KAMAL KHATA, J. ] [DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.]