JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal") dated 16/08/2016 in ITA No. 339/Raj/2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law; "Whether the ITAT is justified in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 38,86,41,444/- under Section 80IA(4)? 2. The facts leading to present Tax Appeal in nutshell are as under; 2.1 The respondent - assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 declaring the total income at Rs. 5,74,84,220/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee - company has claimed deduction of Rs. 40,05,24,711/- under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) on infrastructure development in respect of infrastructure facility provided at JNPT - Nava Sheva Port. The assessee - Company had set up a Container Freight Station at Nava Sheva Port in Navi Mumbai in the F.Y. 2005-06. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of Rs. 40,05,24,711/- under Section 80IA(4) of the Act as claimed. Thereafter, the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act came to be finalized by the Assessing Officer by determining the total income of the assessee Company at Rs. 45,80,08,931/- after making disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 40,05,24,711/- of the Act. The Assessing Officer while disallowing the claim made by the assessee under Section 80IA(4) of the Act was of the opinion that the Container Freight Stand operated by the assessee at JNPT is not the specified infrastructure facility eligible for such deduction and the facility set up at Mundra Port is also Container Freight Station, and therefore, the same does not qualify the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer making disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 40,05,24,711/- under Section 80IA(4) of the At, the assessee preferred Appeal before the learned CIT(A). 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Officer making disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 40,05,24,711/- under Section 80IA(4) of the At, the assessee preferred Appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) allowed the said Appeal preferred by the assessee and deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA of the Act. 2.3 In Appeal preferred by the revenue, learned tribunal by the impugned judgment and order has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee of Rs. 40,05,24,711/- under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal, revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the aforesaid proposed question of law. 3. We have heard Shri Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. We have also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal. The question is with respect to deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA(4) of the Act in case of the income derived from the industrial undertaking of Container Freight Stand at JNPT. It appears that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee by considering the conditions mentioned in the provisions of Section 80IA(4) of the Act vis-a-vis Circular No. 10 : dated 16/12/2005. The Assessing Officer relied upon the Certificate issued by JNPT dated 29/10/2005 bearing Reference No. JNPT/FIN/2005/290 wherein it was certified that the Container Freight Stand is situated on land that does not belong to the port and the Container Freight Stand of the assessee is extended activity of the port. The learned CIT(A) as well as the learned tribunal has deleted the disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act, and therefore, the question, which is posed for the consideration of this Court, is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act in case of the income derived from the industrial undertaking of Container Freight Station or not? 3.1 The aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the revenue in light of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Limited Vs. 3.1 The aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the revenue in light of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 346 ITR 140 [Delhi] as well as the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax II, Thane Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [Nhava Sheva] Limited reported in 374 ITR 645 (Bombay). In the aforesaid two decisions, Delhi High Court as well as Bombay High Court, after considering CBDT Circular No. 10 : dated 16/12/2005 have specifically observed and held that looking to the facilities provided by Container Freight Stand, the Container Freight Stand is an Inland Port as it carries out functions of warehousing, customs clearance and transport of goods from its location to sea-port and vice versa by rail or by trucks in containers. 4. Under the circumstances, the learned tribunal has rightly deleted the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. At this stage, it is required to be noted that with respect to the earlier orders the assessee has been granted the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act pursuant to the order passed by the learned tribunal and the same has attained finality. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal. No substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeal. Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.