The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S. A.l.logistics Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS The Hon’ble Mr.Justice NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAOAND The Hon’ble Dr.Justice ANITA SUMANTH Tax Case Appeal Nos.739, 740 and 767 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai...Appellant in all casesVersus M/s. A.L.Logistics Private Limited113, Armenian Street, Chennai - 600 001...Respondent in all cases Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench, Chennai, dated 29.01.2016 in ITANos.1814/Mds/2015, 1815/Mds/2015 and 1816/Mds/2015 against theorder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennaidated 26.5.2015 made in ITA.Nos.145/14-1/A1 (New No.ITA 97/CIT(A)-1/2014-15 ITA.No.144/14-15/A-1 (New NO.ITA.96 / CIT(A)-1/2014-15 and, ITA No.142/14-15/A-1 New No.ITA 95/ CIT(A( -1 /2014-15 respectively and against Assessment order passed by theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle -1(1) Chennaidated 19.3.2014 and 28.2.2014 and 28.2.2014 for the assessmentyear 2007-08 , 2008-09 and 2011-12 respectively and made inGIR/PAN No.AX-7133- . These three Tax Case Appeals are preferred by the Revenueunder Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, calling inquestion the correctness of the orders passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 29.01.2016 in ITANos.1814/Mds/2015, 1815/Mds/2015 and 1816/Mds/2015. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The following four substantial questions of law areraised for consideration in these Tax Case Appeals:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance madeu/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal is correct inholding that the container freight station could be treated asinland port and therefore assessee is eligible for deduction u/s80IA(4)? (iii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially whenthe conditions imposed u/s 80IA(i)(b) had not been complied withby the assessee? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in not appreciating thefact that the amendment to Section 80IA(4) Explanation wasintroduced with effect from 01.04.2002 omitted the word "Anyother public facility of similar nature" and thereby wronglyallowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) on income from container freightstation? 3. Heard Mr.Arun Korean Joseph, learned Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Department . 4. It will be relevant to notice at the very outset that inthe very same Assessee's case, the matter has been broughtbefore this Court, raising the very same substantial questionsof law, a Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment dated23.12.2014, reported in 374 ITR 609, decided the issue in favourof the Assessee and against the Revenue. It appears that theRevenue has gone in further appeal before the Supreme Court andleave was granted and Civil Appeal No.4983 of 2015 is pendingbefore the Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department would urge that we maygrant admission to these Tax Case Appeals and keep them pendingtill such time the Supreme Court decides the issue. 5. On the other hand, we consider that it would only beappropriate to follow the reasoning assigned by the DivisionBench of this Court in the Judgment rendered earlier, that wasreported in 374 ITR 609 which is the subject matter ofconsideration in Civil Appeal No.4983 of 2015. Particularly whenthe operation of the judgment of this Court is not suspended. 6. Hence, we do not consider it appropriate to keep theseTax Case Appeals pending in this Court. Accordingly, we dismissthese three Tax Case Appeals. We prefer to follow thereasonings adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in theJudgment reported in 374 ITR 609 and for the very same reasons, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. On the other hand, we consider that it would only beappropriate to follow the reasoning assigned by the DivisionBench of this Court in the Judgment rendered earlier, that wasreported in 374 ITR 609 which is the subject matter ofconsideration in Civil Appeal No.4983 of 2015. Particularly whenthe operation of the judgment of this Court is not suspended. 6. Hence, we do not consider it appropriate to keep theseTax Case Appeals pending in this Court. Accordingly, we dismissthese three Tax Case Appeals. We prefer to follow thereasonings adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in theJudgment reported in 374 ITR 609 and for the very same reasons, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ we answer the substantial questions of law in favour of theAssessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, connectedC.M.P.Nos. are closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ gr. Sub Asst. Registrar To: 1. The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench,III Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagarchennai-90 Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 3. The CommissionerIncome tax Appeals-1, Chennai 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle 1(1) Chennai 1 cc to MR.T. Ravikumar, St. Counsel Income tax Department, Sr.64276 T.C.A.Nos.739, 740 and 767 of 2016 RSY (CO)kk 5/12 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/