Continental Container Freight Stations Private Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 94/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7984 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH IRS; RU GEORGE
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO S.1394/MDS/2014 & 94/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 M/S. CONTINENTAL CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS PVT. LTD, 81, SAMY COMPLEX, THAMBU CHETTY STREET, PARRYS CORNER, CHENNAI 600 001. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(3) CHENNAI. ./I.T.A. NO.136/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(3) CHENNAI. VS. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS PVT. LTD, 81, SAMY COMPLEX , THAMBU CHETTY STREET, PARRYS CORNER, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN AADCC 3448C] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : MS. RUBY GEORGE, CIT AND A.V. SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 10-11-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-11-2016 ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1394/MDS/2014 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST AN ORDER OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI ON 26.03.2014. ITA NO. 94/MDS/2015 AND 136/MDS/2015 ARE CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE RESPECTIVELY DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 30.09.2014 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHEN NAI. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FOR VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IN ITA NO.94/MDS/2015 AND 136/MDS/2015 ARE TAKEN UP FIR ST FOR DISPOSAL. 3. REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED ON THE DELETION OF A DISALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM OF A1,26,12,282/- UNDER SEC TION 80IA(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). AS AGAINST THIS, ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED ON NOTIONAL CHARGE OF INTEREST @9% ON OUT STANDING BALANCE OF UNSECURED LOANS THEREBY REDUCING THE DEDUCTION U /S.80IA CLAIMED BY IT. ONE OTHER GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF WAREHOUSING FACILITIES, WHICH LD. A SSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED AS PART OF CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS. ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 3 -: 4. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF OPERATING CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION AND INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS AT CHENNAI, TUTICORIN, TIRUPPUR AND KARUR HAD FILED RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING NIL INCOME. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT FOR ITS EA RNINGS FROM WAREHOUSE RENTAL. ASSESSEE RECEIVED WAREHOUSE RENT ALS OF A19,51,367/- FROM DECCAN AND PONDY AT ITS CORPORATE OFFICE, A1,06,60,915/- FROM M/S. ITC AT ITS ENNORE FACILI TY AND A 98,35,215/- AT ITS PONDICHERRY CFS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT WARE HOUSING FACILITY AT ENNORE AND CORPORATE OFFICE WERE NOT APPROVED CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS. RELYING ON TH E DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF A.S. SHIPPING AND SERVICES P. LTD DATED 17.11.2011, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT STAND ALONE FACILI TIES WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. IN SO FAR AS RENTAL RECEIPT AT PONDICHERRY OFFICE WAS CONCERNED, LD AS SESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION SUCH RENTAL INCOME WERE NOT ON ACCOU NT OF TEMPORARY HOLD BACK OF CONTAINER IN THE CFS FACILITY. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, CFS HANDLING CHARGES WHICH WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT WAS ONLY THOSE ARISING FROM TEM PORARY WAREHOUSING BUT NOT PURE WAREHOUSING BUSINESS. ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 4 -: 5. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT TRANSPORTATION CO ST DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE INCL UDED A44,88,784/- RELATING TO PONDICHERRY AND TUTICORIN. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH COSTS WERE INCURRED FOR OUTBOUND TRAFFIC OUTS IDE THE CFS AND NOT TO THE PORTS. HE EXCLUDED THIS AMOUNT FROM ELIGIBLE TURNOVER AND WORKED OUT DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 6. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED TRAILER DETENTION CHARG ES OF A6,20,625/- AND VEHICLE LEASE CHARGES OF A36,00,000 /- AGGREGATES TO A42,20,625/-. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THIS WA S REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM ELIGIBLE TURNOVER FOR WORKING OUT DED UCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 7. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THUS EXCLUDED WAREHOUSING RE NTAL RECEIVED AT CORPORATE OFFICE, ENNORE FACILITY AND P ONDICHERRY CFS, TRANSPORTATION COST RELATING TO PONDICHERRY AND TUT ICORIN FACILITIES AND VEHICLE LEASE AND RENT CHARGES FROM THE TURNOVER O F THE ASSESSEE WHILE WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO IT UND ER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSAILING EXC LUSION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS FROM THE TURNOVER FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 5 -: U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CONSIDERING THE OBJECT OF INSE RTING 80IA(4) IN THE ACT, WHICH WAS PROMOTION OF PORTS AND INFRASTRUCTU RE FACILITIES, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD VS. CIT 137 ITD 237 , ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT O N WAREHOUSING RENTALS RECEIVED FOR THE WAREHOUSES IN CORPORATE OF FICE AND ENNORE. FOR THE WAREHOUSING RENTALS RECEIVED FROM PONDIC HERY CFS, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT CONCLUSION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING TEMPORARY NATUR E OF THE WAREHOUSING FACILITIES WAS INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED ON TURNOVER PERCENTAGE OF PONDY FACILITIES FOR COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION WHICH WAS INCORRECT. AS FOR THE EXCLUSION OF TRANSPORTATION REVENUE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED TRA NSPORTATION COST INCURRED AT PONDICHERRY AND TUTICORIN TO BE NOT RE LATED TO OUT BOUND TRAFFIC OF CFS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASSESSEE WAS DOING TRANSPORTA TION OF CARGO CONTAINERS ONLY FOR EXPORT AND IMPORT AND THERE WA S NO QUESTION OF ANY TRANSPORTATION CHARGES UNRELATED TO THIS ACTIVI TY. AS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION AND INCIDENTAL CHARGES, LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS OFFERING CFS SERVICES AS A ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 6 -: BOUQUET AND DIVISION OF THE REVENUE AND ACTIVITY CO ULD NOT BE DONE. THUS, HE RULED AGAINST EXCLUSION OF TRANSPORT CHARG ES AS WELL AS INCIDENTAL CHARGES WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION AVAILA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS E LIGIBLE TO INCLUDE ALL THESE AMOUNTS IN ITS TURNOVER WHILE WORKING OUT TH E DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 9. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRO NGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMI TTED THAT FACILITIES OPERATED AT CORPORATE OFFICE AT ENNORE WERE NOT AP PROVED CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACE ON CIRCULAR NO.133/95, DATE D 22.12.1995 OF THE CBDT. ACCORDING TO HIM, UNLESS AND UNTIL CFS WAS N OTIFIED AS A CUSTOMS AREA UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, DE DUCTION U/SEC. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE GIVEN. HE ALSO SO UGHT TO DISTINGUISH SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD(SUPRA ) BY SUBMITTING THAT FACILITY IN SAID CASE WAS AN INLAND CONTAINER DIVISION WHICH WAS SIMILAR TO CFS. AS F OR TRANSPORTATION INCOME AT TIRUPPUR AND KARUR, LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS TRANSPORTING GOODS IN T HE HINTERLAND AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) OF T HE ACT ON SUCH TURNOVER. ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 7 -: 10. CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPP ORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) SUBMITTED THAT DECISION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) WAS IN LINE WITH THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. A.L. LOGISTICS PVT. LTD IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO.103 1 OF 2014, DATED 23.12.2014 . 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT ASSESSEE WAS OPERATING A CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION AND PROVIDING WAREHOUSING FACILITIES. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD STAT ED THAT THERE WAS APPROVAL FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS CFS OPERATION AT CHENNAI, TUTICORIN, TIRUPPUR AND KARUR AT PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER. THAT WAR EHOUSING FACILITIES OPERATED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE PART AND PARCEL OF TH E CFS ACTIVITY HAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS. ACIT 340 ITR 140 HAD HELD THAT EVEN INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT WHEN IT WAS DOING ACTIVITIES SIMILAR TO CFS. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.L. LOGISTICS PVT LTD (SUPRA ) HAD ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING A VIEW THAT WAREHOUSING RENTAL RECEIVED BY THE ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 8 -: ASSESSEE IN CORPORATE OFFICE ENNORE AND PONDICHERRY WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THESE AS PART OF THE CFS FACILITY. 12. WITH RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION REVENUE RELATING TO PONDICHERRY AND TUTICORIN TO PORTS, IT IS NOT DISPU TED THAT SUCH TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WERE RECEIVED FOR MOVING GO ODS IN CARGO CONTAINERS TO THE PORTS. HENCE, THE DISTINCTION S OUGHT TO BE MADE BETWEEN AREAS OF TRANSPORT WAS NOT IN OUR OPINION JUSTIFIED. SIMILARLY, INCIDENTAL CHARGES ON ACCOUNT OF TRAILER DETENTION AND VEHICLE LEASE, WERE A PART OF THE BOUQUET OF SERVICES OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PART OF ITS CFS DIVISION. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT ON TH ESE ITEMS. 13. NOW COMING TO THE CROSS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FOUND THAT THERE WERE UNSECUR ED LOANS OF A11,99,12,541/- IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS P ER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, IF 9% INTEREST WAS IMPUTED ON SUCH LOANS T HEN PROFIT AVAILABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT WOULD BE LOWER BY THAT AMOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE WA S ARRANGING ITS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IN SUCH A WAY THAT MORE PR OFITS THAN WHAT IT WOULD HAVE EARNED WAS SHOWN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 80 IA(4) OF THE ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 9 -: ACT. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT WAS SCALED DOWN BY A1,06,69,284/-. FOR DOING THIS, LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER PLACED RELIANCE ON SUB-SECTION (10) TO SEC. 80IA OF THE ACT. 14. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NOTIONA L INTEREST COULD NOT BE IMPUTED. HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS A C LOSE RELATION BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND LENDERS OF THE MONEY WHO WERE EARLIER PARTNERS. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT NONPAYMENT OF INTEREST TO THESE PERSONS HAD RESULTE D IN EXCESSIVE RELIEF BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. HE CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT RELATED PARTIES WERE EX-PARTNERS OF THE FIRM WHICH WAS CONVERTED INTO ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS NO R EASON HOW ANY INTEREST COULD BE IMPUTED ON A LOAN WHEN NO SUCH IN TEREST WAS CHARGED BY THE LENDER. 16. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 10 -: 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BREAKUP OF THE LOA NS ON WHICH INTEREST WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WERE AS UNDER:- S. XAVIER BRITTO : A2,19,36,233/- SMT. VIMALA RANI BRITTO : A1,31,85,850/- INDEV SHIPPING SERVICES (TUTICORIN) LTD : A2,11,40,183/- ENNORE CARGO CONTAINERS TERMINAL P. LTD : A1,69,16,689/- INDEV LOGISTICS P. LTD : A4,53,68,649/- OTHERS : A 13,64,937/- --------------------- TOTAL A11,99,12,541/- ---------------------- SEC. 80IA(10) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS RELIED ON BY TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER:- (10) WHERE IT APPEARS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT, OWING TO THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE CARRYING ON THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THIS SEC TION APPLIES AND ANY OTHER PERSON, OR FOR ANY OTHER REAS ON, THE COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THEM IS SO ARRANGED THAT THE BUSINESS TRANSACTED BETWEEN THEM PRODUCES TO THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN THE ORDINARY PROFITS WHIC H MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO ARISE IN SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINES S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IN COMPUTING THE PROFI TS AND GAINS OF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE S OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION, TAKE THE AMOUNT O F PROFITS AS MAY BE REASONABLY DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED THEREFROM. IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF THAT LENDERS WERE EX-PARTNERS. HENCE THERE IS EVERY REASON FOR LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO BELIEVE THAT COURSE OF BUSINESS WAS ARRANGED IN SUCH A MANNER T HAT MORE THAN ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 11 -: ELIGIBLE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS THE PROFIT. ASSESSE E WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW WHY INTEREST WAS NOT CHARGED BY THE ABOVE MEN TIONED PERSONS WHEN SUBSTANTIAL UNSECURED LOANS WERE OUTSTANDING I N THEIR NAMES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 18. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON A DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON ITS WAREHOUSING FA CILITY AT BANGALORE. 19. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SPECIFICAL LY NOTED THAT VALUE OF THE ABOVE ASSET WAS SHOWN AS A PART OF CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS IN THE FIXED ASSET SCHEDULE OF THE ASSESSE E. THERE WAS NO INCOME WHATSOEVER CREDITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS F ROM THE FACILITY. IF IT WAS OPERATIONAL ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED AT LEAST A NOMINAL INCOME FROM THIS FACILITY. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, DEPRECI ATION WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF BOTH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 21. COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1394/MDS/20114 IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER D ATED 26.03.2014 ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 12 -: BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHENNAI PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT FOR THE VERY SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. 22. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD REVISED THE ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR CONSIDERING IT TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. REASON CITED WAS THAT LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED AMENDMENT TO SEC. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.2002. ACCORDING TO CIT, SAID AME NDMENT WITHDREW THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) TO FACILITY OF SIMILAR NATURE . LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTAINER CORPORAT ION OF INDIA LTD VS. ACIT 346 ITR 140 CITING A REASON THAT THE SAID JU DGMENT HAD NOT REACHED FINALITY. 23. WE FIND THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED DEDU CTION TO ASSESSEE U/S.80IA (4) OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE CF S TO BE AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH BENEFIT. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. A.L. LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH WAS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 HAS HELD THAT EAR NING FROM CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIO N U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. FURTHER IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST DENIAL OF DEDUCTION ITA NO. 1394/14, 94 & 136/15 :- 13 -: ON SOME PARTS OF ITS TURNOVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD HELD IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR AND THIS V IEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY US AT PARA 11 & 12 ABOVE. WE ARE THEREFOR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAVING A TAKEN A VIEW WHICH WAS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. WE, THE REFORE SETASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1394/MDS/2014 IS ALLOWED, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.94/MDS/2015 IS DISMISSED AND APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IN ITA NO.136/MDS/2015 IS ALSO DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEM BER, 2016, AT CHENNAI SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2016 KV !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ) () / CIT(A) 5. %+, # - / DR 2. #.'( / RESPONDENT 4. ) / CIT 6. ,/ 0 / GF