Sarang v. Kotwal, Jj.date: 09[Th] April, 2019

1 / 2 04-ITXA-260-17-&-185-17.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.260 OF 2017WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.185 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1.... Appellant versusM/s Gateway Distriparks Ltd.... Respondent ….... Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.Mathur Agrawal i/b. Mr.Atul Jasani, Advocate for Respondent.Mr.Mathur Agrawal i/b. Mr.Atul Jasani, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.DATE: 09[th] APRIL, 2019. P.C. : 1. Income Tax Appeal No.185/17 is not on board. It is taken on board as per the request of learned Counsel for the Revenue. 2. The Revenue has filed these Appeals challenging the judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Following question is presented for our consideration; “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in dismissing the 2 / 2 04-ITXA-260-17-&-185-17.odtrevenue's appeal to treat Container Freight Station orCFS as on inland port within the meaning of section80IA (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when a similarissue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of CIT v/s Continental Ware Housing Corpn. Ltd.” 3. The issue is covered by decision of this Court in case ofCommissioner of Income Tax-II, Thane, Vs. ContinentalWarehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., reported in(2015) 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay). This is also a viewexpressed by Gujarat High Court in CIT (Principal) Vs.Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2017) 398 ITR436. As correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel for theassessee, these judgments of the High Courts have beenapproved by the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner ofIncome-Tax Vs. Container Corporation of India Ltd., reportedin (2018) 404 ITR 397 (SC). 4. In the result, the Appeals are dismissed. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)