COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1versusM/S CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

                        [2018] 5 S.C.R. 607                          607


         COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1                         A
                                v.
      M/S CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8900 of 2012)
                         APRIL 24, 2018                              B
  [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
      Income Tax Act, 1961 – s.80-IA – Deduction under s.80-IA
on the profits earned from the Inland Container Depots – Held:
The ICDs are Inland Ports and are subject to the provisions of
                                                                     C
s.80-IA – Deduction can be claimed for the income earned out of
these Depots – Customs Act, 1962 – s.2(12), 7(1)(aa).
     Disposing of the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1. The Inland Container Depots (ICDs) function
for the benefit of exporters and importers located in industrial     D
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        E
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,         F
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 ICDs for the unloading of imported
goods and the loading of export goods. [Para 10][613-F-H;
614-A-B]                                                             G
      2. 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 Act. Section 80-IA of
the IT Act talks about deduction in respect of profits and gains     H
                                607
608            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     from industrial undertaking or enterprises engaged in the
      infrastructure development etc. The said amendment for the first
      time brought a provision under which a percentage of profits
      derived from the operation of infrastructure facility was allowed
      a deduction while computing the income of the assessee. A ten
      years tax concession allowed to the enterprises in accordance
B
      with the provisions of the Section subject to fulfillment of
      conditions given therein, which develops, maintains and operates
      any new infrastructure facility such as roads, highways,
      expressways, bridges, airports, ports and rail system or any other
      public facility of similar nature as notified. Section 80 IA (12) (a)
C     gives the power to the Board to notify certain other enterprises
      which can avail the benefit of Section 80-IA of the IT Act, which
      do not fall within any of the specified categories but carries out
      activities of similar nature. Further, Central Board of Direct Taxes
      (CBDT), in exercise of its power under Section 80-IA(12)(ca),
      vide Notification No.S.O.744(E) dated 01.09.1998 notified ICDs
D
      and CFSs as infrastructure facility. In addition to the above, the
      Finance Act, 1998, which came into effect on 01.04.1999, made a
      change in the definition of ‘Infrastructure facility’ as is relevant
      to the present case. The words ‘Inland water ways and inland
      ports’ were added in the definition of infrastructure facility. A
E     noticeable change was further brought by the Finance Act, 2001,
      which came into effect from 01.04.2002, in the terms that the
      power of the Board to extend the benefit of the said provisions
      to any infrastructure facility of similar nature by issuing a
      Notification was taken away. The new explanation to Section 80-
      IA(4) of the IT Act as is substituted by the Finance Act, 2001.
F
      The said amendment is silent with regard to any effect it would
      have upon the Notifications issued earlier by the Board in due
      exercise of its power. Had it been the intention of the legislature
      that the Notifications issued by the Board earlier are of no effect
      after 2002-03, it would have had found a place in the said
G     amendment. In the absence of the same, the Notifications which
      were issued in legitimate exercise of the power conferred on the
      Board would not cease to have effect after the Assessment Year
      2002-03. [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16, 18] [614-B-D; 615-A-C, D-E;
      616-A-C]
H
    COMMISSIONER OF I.T., DELHI-1 v. M/S CONTAINER                      609
            CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

      3. The Respondent has been held entitled for the benefit          A
of Section 80IA of the IT Act much before the Finance Act, 2001
which came into force on 01.04.2002 and exemption for the period
of 10 years cannot be curtailed or denied by any subsequent
amendment regarding the eligibility conditions under the period
is modified or specific provision is made that the benefit from
                                                                        B
01.04.2002 onwards shall only be claimed by the existing eligible
units if they fulfill the new conditions. [Para 20] [616-F-G]
       4. Now the issue is whether the ICDs can be termed as
Inland Ports so as to entitle deduction under Section 80-IA of
the IT Act. The term port, in commercial terms, is a place where
vessels are in a habit of loading and unloading goods. The term         C
‘Port’ as is used in the Explanation attached to Section 80-IA(4)
seems to have maritime connotation perhaps that is the reason
why the word airport is found separately in the Explanation.
Considering the nature of work that is performed at ICDs, they
cannot be termed as Ports. However, taking into consideration           D
the fact that a part of activities that are carried out at ports such
as custom clearance are also carried out at these ICDs, the claim
of the respondent can be considered within the term ‘Inland port’
as is used in the Explanation. The word ‘Inland Container Depots’
was first introduced in the definition of ‘Customs Port’ as is given
in Section 2(12) of the Customs Act, 1962, through amendment            E
made by the Finance Act, 1983 with effect from 13.05.1983.
[Para 21] [617-A-C]
       5. The term ‘Inland Port’ has been defined nowhere. But
the Notification that has been issued by the Central Board of
Excise & Customs (CBEC) dated 24.04.2007 in terms holds that            F
considering the nature of work carried out at these ICDs they
can be termed as Inland Ports. Further, the communication dated
25.05.2009 issued on behalf of the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry confirming that the ICDs are Inland Ports, fortifies the
claim of the respondent. Though both the Notification and               G
communication are not binding on CBDT to decide whether ICDs
can be termed as Inland Ports within the meaning of Section 80-IA
of the IT Act, the appellant is unable to put forward any reasonable
explanation as to why these notifications and communication

                                                                        H
610            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     should not be relied to hold ICDs as Inland Ports. Unless shown
      otherwise, it cannot be held that the term ‘Inland Ports’ is used
      differently under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. The ICDs are Inland
      Ports and subject to the provisions of the Section and deduction
      can be claimed for the income earned out of these Depots.
      However, the actual computation is to be made in accordance
B
      with the different Notifications issued by the Customs department
      with regard to different ICDs located at different places.
      [Para 22] [617-D-G]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8900
      of 2012.
C
            From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05.2012 of the High Court
      of Delhi in ITA Nos. 1411 of 2009, ITA Nos. 967 and 968 of 2011
                                       WITH
            C. A. No. 8901 of 2012, C. A. No. 4409 of 2014, C. A. Nos. 4983
D     and 8546 of 2015, C. A. Nos. 66, 6411, 8034, 6982, 6635, 9651, 7211,
      7210, 7209, 8033, 8032, 10336, 8755, 9158, 9157, 8352, 9159, 10307,
      9744, 9743, 10308, 10662, 11709 of 2017, C.A. Nos. 1441, 4458, 4459,
      5571, 5573, 6800, 11075, 9364, 9487, 9277, 10236, 14900, 16162, 11202,
      15028, 11117, 15033, 11160, 15494, 15497, 17315, 17534, 17317, 17318,
E     18272, 19491, 19535, 19935 of 2017, C. A. Nos. 4487, 4543, 4484,
      4493-4494, 4499, 4548, 4547, 4655 and 4645 of 2018.
            K. Radhakrishnan, Rakesh Dwivedi, S. K. Bagaria, Percy
      Pardiwala, Jehagir Mistry, Sr. Advs., Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arijit Prasad,
      Zoheb Hossain, Tara Chandra Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, D.L. Chidananda,
F     Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Ms. Gargi Khanna, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Mrs. Anil
      Katiyar, Kaushik Poddar, Ms. Isha Singh, Ms. Snehil Sonam, Preetesh
      Kapur, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, I. P.
      Bansal, Vivek Bansal, Aneesh Mittal, Siddarth Bhatnagar, Debmalya
      Banerjee, Kartik Bhatnagar, Manish Sharma, A.S. Aman,
      M/s. Karanjawala & Co., Praveen Swarup, Dr. Rakesh Gupta,
G     Ms. Monika Ghai, Mrs. Shyamalima Borah, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Salil
      Agarwal, Bhargava V. Desai, Akshat Malpani, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
      V. Ramasubramanian, A. Lakshminarayanan, Sunny Choudhary,
      Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Sharad Agarwal, Nipun Sharma, S. Krishnan,
      Bikash Chandra, Inder Mohan Singh, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, K. Gandhi,
H
    COMMISSIONER OF I.T., DELHI-1 v. M/S CONTAINER                           611
            CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

Ms. Srishti Singh, Rajeev, Vijay Kumar, Farman Ali, Ravi Prakash, Raheel     A
Kohli, M/s D.S.K. Legal, Ranjit B. Raut, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor,
Mrs. Bina Gupta, Ninad Laud, Karan Mathur, Anjuman Tripathy, Ivo
D’Costa, Jayant Mohan, S. Vasudevan, Mahendra Singh, Saurabh Sood,
Aditya Bhattacharya, Victor Das, Punit Dutt Tyagi, S. Vasudevan, Dhruv
Mehta, Ms. Nupur Maheshwari, M. P. Devanath, Ms. Kavita Jha, Vaibhav
                                                                             B
Kulkarni, Praveen Swarup, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Ankita
Chaudhary, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
      2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and          C
order dated 11.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in ITA
Nos.1411 of 2009, ITA Nos. 967 and 968 of 2011 wherein the Division
Bench of the High Court while allowing the above appeals filed by the
respondent herein set aside the order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) holding that the     D
respondent herein is entitled to claim the benefit of Section 80-IA of the
Income Tax Act,1961(in short ‘the IT Act’).
      3. Brief facts:
      (a) M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR)-the
respondent herein is a government Company and is engaged in the              E
business of handling and transportation of containerized cargo and is
under the direct administrative control of Ministry of Railways. Its
operating activities are mainly carried out at its Inland Container Depots
(ICDs), Container Freight Stations (CFSs) and Port Side Container
Terminals (PSCTs) spread all over the country.                               F
        (b) The issue in the present case pertains to the assessment year
2003-04 to 2005-06. The respondent herein filed the returns on the income
for all these years and claimed deduction under various heads including
deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. This issue is with regard to
the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA on the profits earned from
                                                                             G
the Inland Container Depots (ICDs) and on rolling stocks. The claim for
deduction on the profits earned from the ICDs and further the deduction
on account of rolling stocks has been rejected by the Assessing Officer
vide Assessment Order dated 28.02.2006.

                                                                             H
612             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A            (c) The respondent herein, being aggrieved with the aforesaid
      order, filed an appeal being No. 325/05-06 to the Commissioner of Income
      Tax (Appeals)-VI, New Delhi. Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated
      29.05.2007, partly allowed the appeal while rejecting the deduction
      claimed under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. Being aggrieved, the
      respondent herein further preferred ITA Nos. 2851 & 3680/DEL./2007,
B
      2753 & 4477/DEL/2007 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order
      dated 27.02.2009, partly allowed the appeal and held that the deduction
      under Section 80-IA can be claimed with regard to the rolling stocks of
      the company but not with regard to the ICDs.
             (d) Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2009, the respondent
C     herein challenged the same before the High Court by filing three Income
      Tax Appeals being Nos. 967 of 2011, 1411 of 2009 and 968 of 2011. The
      Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated
      11.05.2012, allowed the appeals and held that the Respondent herein is
      entitled to claim deduction on the income earned from the ICDs for the
D     relevant period under consideration under Section 80-IA of the IT Act.
      Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.05.2012, the Revenue
      has preferred this appeal before this Court.
            4. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the
      factual matrix of the case.
E           Points for consideration:-
             5. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in
      the facts and circumstances of the case the Inland Container Depots
      (ICDs) under the control of the Respondent, during the relevant period,
      qualified for deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act or not.
F
            Rival contentions:-
             6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended
      that the High Court was not right in holding that the Respondent is entitled
      to deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act as the activities undertaken
      by the assessee cannot be said to fall within Explanation (d) of Section
G
      80-IA(4) defining the term infrastructure facility.
             7. Learned senior counsel further contended that the High Court
      was wrong in placing reliance on the Notification dated 01.09.1998 issued
      by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to hold that the Respondent
H
    COMMISSIONER OF I T. DELHI-1 v. M/S CONTAINER                              613
     CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [R.K. AGRAWAL. J.]

is allowed to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act as the         A
power of the said Board was taken away by the Finance Act, 2001 with
effect from 01.04.2002. Learned senior counsel further contended that
in view of the aforesaid amendment, the Notifications issued by the
CBDT with regard to treating the ICDs as infrastructure facility were
applicable only upto the Assessment Year 2002-03.
                                                                               B
       8. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the ICDs cannot
be termed as ports or inland ports within the meaning of Section 80-
IA(4) so as to allow them to claim deduction under the said Section and
the judgment rendered by the High Court is erroneous in the eyes of the
law and is liable to be set aside.
                                                                               C
       9. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent
contended that the High Court has rightly set aside the judgment and
order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the Tribunal. Learned senior counsel
further contended that once the ICDs have been notified validly by the
CBDT, by virtue of the powers conferred upon them, the fact that at a
later point of time the power was taken away does not put an end to the        D
validity or effect of the notification and as per the relevant Section as it
stood at the time when the notification was issued, the Respondent was
eligible for deduction for a period of 10 successive assessment years
which covers the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2005-06 which are the
years under appeal. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the          E
judgment and order passed by the High Court does not call for any
interference.
      Discussion:
       10. As the whole point in dispute revolves around the ICDs, it
would be appropriate to have an understanding about the same. The              F
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      G
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

                                                                               H
614             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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 Act. Section 80-IA of the IT Act talks about
C     deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertaking or
      enterprises engaged in the infrastructure development etc. The said
      amendment for the first time brought a provision under which a percentage
      of profits derived from the operation of infrastructure facility was allowed
      a deduction while computing the income of the assessee. A ten years
D     tax concession allowed to the enterprises in accordance with the
      provisions of the Section subject to fulfillment of conditions given therein,
      which develops, maintains and operates any new infrastructure facility
      such as roads, highways, expressways, bridges, airports, ports and rail
      system or any other public facility of similar nature as notified.
E            12. The relevant portion of Section 80IA (as it stood then) reads
      as under:
             “Section 80-IA(4A):This section applies to:—
             any enterprise carrying on the business of developing, maintaining
             and operating any infrastructure facility which fulfills the following
             conditions, viz.,
F
             Section 80-IA(5) clause(ia): in the case of enterprise referred to
             in sub-section (4A) hundred percent of profits and gains derived
             from such business for the initial five assessment years and
             thereafter thirty per cent of such profits and gains.”
             13. The term infrastructure facility had also been defined which
G     at the relevant time stood as follows:-
             “Section 80-IA(12)(ca): Infrastructure facility means:-
              a road, highway, bridge, airport, port or rail system or any other
             public facility of similar nature as may be notified by the Board in
             this behalf in Official Gazette;”
H
    COMMISSIONER OF I T. DELHI-1 v. M/S CONTAINER                               615
     CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [R.K. AGRAWAL. J.]

       The said provision gives the power to the Board to notify certain        A
other enterprises which can avail the benefit of Section 80-IA of the IT
Act, which do not fall within any of the specified categories but carries
out activities of similar nature.
        14. Further, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), in exercise
of its power under Section 80-IA(12)(ca), vide Notification                     B
No.S.O.744(E) dated 01.09.1998 notified ICDs and CFSs as infrastructure
facility.
       15. In addition to the above, the Finance Act, 1998, which came
into effect on 01.04.1999, made a change in the definition of
‘Infrastructure facility’ as is relevant to the present case. The words         C
‘Inland water ways and inland ports’ were added in the definition of
infrastructure facility. Now, the definition reads as under:
      “Infrastructure Facility means road, bridge, airport, port, inland
      waterways and inland ports, rail system by any other public facility
      of similar nature as may be notified by the Board in this behalf in       D
      official Gazette.”
       16. A noticeable change was further brought by the Finance Act,
2001, which came into effect from 01.04.2002, in the terms that the
power of the Board to extend the benefit of the said provisions to any
infrastructure facility of similar nature by issuing a Notification was taken   E
away. The new explanation to Section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act as is
substituted by the Finance Act, 2001 reads as under:
       For the purpose of this clause “infrastructure facility” means-
       (a) a road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system;
       (b) a highway project including housing or other activities being
       an integral part of the highway project;                                 F
       (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation
       project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste
       management system;
       (d) a port, airport, inland waterways or inland port;
       17. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the High            G
Court erred in relying on the Notification issued by CBDT to hold that
the enterprises holding ICDs are allowed to claim deductions under Section
80-IA of the IT Act. As the said power of the Board was specifically
taken away by the amendment made by Finance Act, 2001, in light of
                                                                                H
616             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A     the said amendment, the Notifications which were issued by the CBDT
      would cease to operate after the Assessment Year 2002-03.
             18. The argument put forward by learned senior counsel for the
      appellant does not have much force as the said amendment is silent with
      regard to any effect it would have upon the Notifications issued earlier
B     by the Board in due exercise of its power. Had it been the intention of
      the legislature that the Notifications issued by the Board earlier are of
      no effect after 2002-03, it would have had found a place in the said
      amendment. In the absence of the same, we are unable to concur with
      learned senior counsel that the Notifications which were issued in
      legitimate exercise of the power conferred on the Board would cease to
C     have effect after the Assessment Year 2002-03.
             19. Learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the
      High Court committed a grave error in holding ICDs as Inland Ports. It
      was further contended that the ICDs are never understood to fall in the
      category of ‘Inland Port’ under the scheme of the IT Act. The argument
D     in support of this contention is that if the word ‘Inland Port’, as used in
      the Explanation attached to Section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act defining
      ‘infrastructure facility’ includes ICDs, there would have been no need
      for the CBDT to separately exercise its power given under the said
      Section, as it stood then, to notify it as infrastructure facility. However,
E     the argument does not hold much weight behind it as the Notification
      which was issued by the CBDT came into effect on 01.09.1998 i.e., the
      time when the term ‘Inland Port’ was not in itself inserted in the provisions
      of Explanation attached to Section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act defining the
      term ‘infrastructure facility’. It was inserted through Finance Act, 1998
      which came into effect from 01.04.1999. So there seems to be no conflict
F     within the Notification issued by the Board and the fact that the ICDs
      are Inland Ports or not.
             20. Moreover, we find that the Respondent has been held entitled
      for the benefit of Section 80IA of the IT Act much before the Finance
      Act, 2001 which came into force on 01.04.2002 and exemption for the
G     period of 10 years cannot be curtailed or denied by any subsequent
      amendment regarding the eligibility conditions under the period is modified
      or specific provision is made that the benefit from 01.04.2002 onwards
      shall only be claimed by the existing eligible units if they fulfill the new
      conditions.
H
    COMMISSIONER OF I T. DELHI-1 v. M/S CONTAINER                               617
     CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [R.K. AGRAWAL. J.]

       21. Moving further to the issue whether the ICDs can be termed           A
as Inland Ports so as to entitle deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT
Act. The term port, in commercial terms, is a place where vessels are in
a habit of loading and unloading goods. The term ‘Port’ as is used in the
Explanation attached to Section 80-IA(4) seems to have maritime
connotation perhaps that is the reason why the word airport is found
                                                                                B
separately in the Explanation. Considering the nature of work that is
performed at ICDs, they cannot be termed as Ports. However, taking
into consideration the fact that a part of activities that are carried out at
ports such as custom clearance are also carried out at these ICDs, the
claim of the respondent herein can be considered within the term ‘Inland
port’ as is used in the Explanation. It is significant to note that the word    C
‘Inland Container Depots’ was first introduced in the definition of
‘Customs Port’ as is given in Section 2(12) of the Customs Act, 1962,
through amendment made by the Finance Act, 1983 with effect from
13.05.1983.

       22. The term ‘Inland Port’ has been defined nowhere. But the             D
Notification that has been issued by the Central Board of Excise &
Customs (CBEC) dated 24.04.2007 in terms holds that considering the
nature of work carried out at these ICDs they can be termed as Inland
Ports. Further, the communication dated 25.05.2009 issued on behalf of
the Ministry of Commerce and Industry confirming that the ICDs are              E
Inland Ports, fortifies the claim of the respondent herein. Though both
the Notification and communication are not binding on CBDT to decide
whether ICDs can be termed as Inland Ports within the meaning of
Section 80-IA of the IT Act, the appellant herein is unable to put forward
any reasonable explanation as to why these notifications and
communication should not be relied to hold ICDs as Inland Ports. Unless         F
shown otherwise, it cannot be held that the term ‘Inland Ports’ is used
differently under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. All these facts taken
together clear the position beyond any doubt that the ICDs are Inland
Ports and subject to the provisions of the Section and deduction can be
claimed for the income earned out of these Depots. However, the actual          G
computation is to be made in accordance with the different Notifications
issued by the Customs department with regard to different ICDs located
at different places.


                                                                                H
618              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 5 S.C.R.


A           23. In light of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that
      judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference and, hence,
      the appeal is accordingly dismissed. All the connected appeals are
      disposed of accordingly. The parties to bear cost on their own.

B     Devika Gujral                                           Appeals disposed of.




C




D




E




F




G




H