PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S. MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (B'LORE) PVT LTD.,

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY I.T.A. NO.1064 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4

5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING

KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE. .... APPELLANTS (BY MR. E.R. INDRAKUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. E.I. SANMATHI, ADV.,) AND: M/S. MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (B'LORE) PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.C-041, BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE-560300 PAN: AAECM 6862D. ... RESPONDENT (BY MR. A. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MR. M. LAVA, ADV.,) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1000/BANG/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12, PRAYING TO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW

2 AND/OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE COMMON APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12-07-2017 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO ITA NO.1000/BANG/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, 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 FINAL HEARING, 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. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2018 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 falls to satisfy the requirements of Section 40IA(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?". 2. For the reasons assigned by us in ITA No.186/2016 c/w ITA No.262/2014, the substantial questions of law framed 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