2026:MHC:299 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICEANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR T.C.A.Nos. 235 & 236 of 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.

.. Appellant in both appeals vs M/s.A.S.Shipping Agencies Pvt Ltd., 113, Armenian Street, Chennai – 600 001.

.. Respondent in both appeals Prayer in TCA No.235 of 2014 : Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘C’ Bench, Chennai dated 21.11.2013 passed in ITA No.

1032/Mds/2013.

Prayer in TCA No.236 of 2014 : Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘C’ Bench, Chennai dated 21.11.2013 passed in ITA No.

1033/Mds/2013.

For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel (in both appeals)

For Respondent : Mr.Sriraman (in both appeals)

COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

The present appeal relates to assessment years (AY) 2008 – 09 and

2009 – 10 and the substantial questions that had been admitted on

11.08.2014 is as follows:-

“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that warehousing charges should be treated as part of the CFS (Container Freight Station) Income and the same would be eligible for deduction under Section 80IA?

2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when both container freight station and bonded warehouse are infrastructure facilities while so only container freight station had been notified to be eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4)?

3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from warehousing activity should be treated as part of the income of Container Freight Station eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) overlooking the amendment to Section 80IA(4) which has been introduced with effect from 01.04.2002 omitting the words ‘any other public facility of similar nature’.”

2. Both Mr.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department and Mr.Sriraman, learned counsel, appearing for the assessee/respondent states that the issue is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi – 1 v Container Corporation of India Ltd, 1404 ITR 397 and the question has been answered in favour of the assessee and adverse to the revenue. The operation portion of that order is as follows:-

“Discussion:

10) As the whole point in dispute revolves around the ICDs, it would be appropriate to have an understanding about the same. The ICDs function for the benefit of exporters and importers located in industrial centers which are situated at distance from sea ports. The purpose of introducing them was to promote the export and import in the country as these depots acts as a facilitator and reduce inconvenience to the person who wishes to export or import but place of his business is situated in a land locked area i.e., away from the sea. These depots reduce the inconvenience in import and export in the sense that it reduces the bottlenecks that are arising out of handling and customs formalities that are required to be done at the sea ports by allowing the same to be done at these depots only that are situated near to them. The term ICDs was inserted in 1983 under Section 2(12) of the Customs Act, 1962 which defines ‘customs port’ and by the provisions of Section 7(1) (aa) of the Customs Act,1962 power has been given to the Central Board of Excise and Custom(CBEC) to notify which place alone to be considered as Inland Container Depots for the unloading of imported goods and the loading of export goods by Notification in the official Gazette.

11) With the purpose of boosting country’s infrastructure

and specially the transport infrastructure, the Finance Act, 1995 which came into effect from 01.04.1996 brought an amendment to the provisions of Section 80-

IA of the IT Ac