PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S MENZIES AVIATION

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL I.T.A. NO.61 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. SANMATHI E.I. ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (B'LORE) PVT LTD., PLOT NO.C-041 BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 300 PAN:AAECM6862D. ... RESPONDENT - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.01.2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.938/BANG/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE

2 APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18.01.2021 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.938/BANG/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the revenue against order dated 18.01.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2015- 16. The appeal is admitted vide order passed today on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the BIAL is a Statutory Body when it cannot be considered as it is a corporate body in which KSIIDC is holding a mere 13% share in BIAL registered under Companies Act and it fails to satisfy the requirements of section 10IA(4) of the I.T. Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is

3 justified in law in holding that the cargo handling contract entered into with BIAL by assessee is with statutory body satisfying condition set forth in section 80IA(4) when BIAL is only a Company whose motive only making profit and is only a instrument of State? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal's order is perverse in nature as Tribunal has erred in holding that assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under section 80IA(4)(ib) of the act even when the assessee has not satisfied the conditions set out in the said provision to make such a claim as the assessee has not entered into agreement with Government nor is involved in development of infrastructure activity as defined in the Act?" 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Admittedly, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal have already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed by this Court in ITA No.262/2014 connected with ITA No.186/2016.

4 3. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV