Ita/61/2022 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S Menzies Aviation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2/7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022PRESENT| THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND| THE HON’/BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMALLT.A. NO.61 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2.CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGSQUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 OO1..CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGSQUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 OO1.. D2 |THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE. (BY MR. SANMATHI E.I. ADVOCATE)| .... APPELLANTS AND" M/S. MENZIES AVIATIONBOBBA (BLORE) PVT LTD.,PLOT NO.C-041|BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTDEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 300.PAN: . .., RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SEC. 260-A OF INCOME TAX|ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.01.2021 PASSEDIN 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 BYTHE HON BLE COURT AS DEEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE! APPELLATE ORDER DATED 18.01.2071 PASSED BY THE INCOME.TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE, IN APPEALPROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.938/BANG/2019 FOR ASSESSMENTYEAR 2015-16, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL AND TO GRANTSUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF.JUSTICE. THIS|1LT.A. COMING ONFORORDERS,THISDAY,ALOK ARADHE J.,DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: | JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (nereinafter referred to as the Act, for snort) nas|been filed by the revenue against order dated 18.01.2021passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Tne subjectmatter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal is admitted vide order passed today on tnefollowing substantial questions of law: “1. Whetner, on the facts and in_ thecircumstances 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 KSIIDCits holding a mere 13% share in BIAL registered|under Companies Act and it fails to satisfy therequirements of section 1OIA(4) of the J.T.|Act? ?.Whetner, Of)thefactsandIntnecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal Is 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 wnose motive only|making profit and is only a instrument. ofState?| 5,Whetner, Of)thefactsandInthecircumstances of the case, Tribunals order Is |perverse in nature as Tribunal nas erred in|holding that assessee is eligible for claiming|deduction under section 80IA(4)(ib) of the act|even when the assessee hes not satisfied theconditions set out in the said provision to|make such a claim as the assessee hes 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 atlength. Admittedly, the substantial questions of law involvedin this appeal have already been answered in favour of theassessee and against tne revenue py judgment dated|25.01.2021 passed by this Court in ITA No.262/2014|connected with ITA No.186/2016. 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|