Airport operator wins deduction battle for non-aeronautical revenue under section 80IA(4) despite revenue department challenge

ITAT Bangalore upheld CIT(A)'s order allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) for non-aeronautical revenue, following previous tribunal decision in assessee's own case. Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal regarding interest income on IT refund and security deposits, finding no double taxation as assessee hadn't claimed deduction. Interest income from fixed deposits was allowed deduction due to direct business nexus with airport operations. Proportionate disallowance of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) was deleted, following SC precedent that advances to subsidiary from own funds don't attract disallowance. Concession fee deduction was allowed on accrual basis, not covered under s.43B. However, guarantee commission income was denied deduction u/s 80IA(4) lacking direct nexus with airport operations.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

(a) Whether the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act is allowable on income derived from non-aeronautical operations, bank interest, and other miscellaneous incomes of the assessee engaged in airport infrastructure development and operation.

(b) Whether the revenue share income from third-party operations such as restaurants, retail outlets, taxi services, license fees, and other non-aeronautical activities is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4).

(c) Whether interest income earned on fixed deposits maintained as part of loan conditions and incidental to business borrowings qualifies for deduction under section 80IA(4).

(d) Whether the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) on other incomes such as tender fees and miscellaneous receipts is allowable.

(e) Whether the proportionate disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is justified on account of interest-free advances given by the assessee to its wholly owned subsidiary.

(f) Whether the concession fee payable to the Government under the concession agreement is deductible on accrual basis or only on actual payment basis under section 43B of the Act.

(g) Whether the guarantee commission income received by the assessee from its wholly owned subsidiary for guaranteeing borrowings is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Deduction under section 80IA(4) on non-aeronautical income and other incomes

The assessee, a public company, entered into a concession agreement with the Ministry of Civil Aviation for development, operation, and maintenance of Bangalore International Airport, including aeronautical and non-aeronautical activities. The revenue was bifurcated into aeronautical and non-aeronautical income. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) on total income including non-aeronautical revenue such as revenue shares from restaurants, retail outlets, taxi services, license fees, and other miscellaneous incomes.

The AO disallowed the deduction on income from bank interest, government grants, interest on tax refunds, tender fees, and non-aeronautical revenue on the ground that these incomes were not "derived from" the eligible business as per the Supreme Court rulings in Cambay Electrical Supply Industrial Co. Ltd., Sterling Foods, and Pandian Chemical. The AO adopted a narrow interpretation of "derived from," restricting deduction to income directly arising from the conduct of the eligible business.

The CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's earlier decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14, which held that revenue share from third-party operations such as retail outlets and restaurants has a direct nexus with the airport operation business and falls within the definition of "infrastructure facility" under section 80IA(4). The CIT(A) observed that the classification of income as non-aeronautical for regulatory disclosure under the Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Act does not affect the eligibility of deduction under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal noted that the concession agreement explicitly includes retail shops and restaurants as part of airport activities and infrastructure facilities. The revenue share received from these third parties was for the right to utilize premises, which the assessee provided as part of its core airport operations. The Tribunal held that such income is "derived from" the business of operating and maintaining the airport and eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4).

Regarding other incomes, the CIT(A) found that interest income on income tax refunds, security deposits, and government grants were not claimed as eligible income for deduction and thus disallowance by the AO amounted to double taxation. The Tribunal upheld this finding.

On interest income from fixed deposits maintained under Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements mandated by lenders, the CIT(A) observed a direct nexus between the interest income and the business borrowings, citing precedents such as Vellore Electric Corporation and Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. The Tribunal concurred that such incidental interest income is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4).

For tender fees and other miscellaneous income, the Tribunal directed remand to the AO for factual verification of nexus with the business, following the principle that income must have a direct and proximate connection with the eligible business to qualify for deduction.

(b) Proportionate disallowance of interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) on interest-free advances to subsidiary

The assessee advanced interest-free loans to its wholly owned subsidiary, Bangalore Airport Hotels Ltd. (BAHL), for the construction of a premium hotel within the airport premises, a requirement under the concession agreement. The AO disallowed proportionate interest expenses under section 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the advances were not for business expediency but were security deposits for land lease and lacked justification.

The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court decision in SA Builders Ltd., which held that interest on borrowed funds used for advancing to a subsidiary for business purposes is deductible if the advance is commercially expedient. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation that the advances were made for business expediency to fulfill obligations under the concession agreement and that the advances were made from own funds, not borrowed funds.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding the amount advanced to the subsidiary, thereby rebutting the presumption that borrowed funds were used. The Tribunal held that the advances were made for business purposes and disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified.

(c) Deduction of concession fee under section 43B of the Act

The assessee paid concession fees to the Government of India at 4% of gross revenue under the concession agreement. The fees were payable in 20 equal half-yearly installments starting from the 11th year after commencement of operations. The assessee claimed deduction on accrual basis, including provision for future installments.

The AO disallowed the provision under section 43B, which mandates deduction only on actual payment of taxes, duties, cess, or fees. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of provision but allowed deduction on actual payments made during the year.

The Tribunal referred to earlier orders in the assessee's own case for AYs 2010-11, 2012-13, and 2013-14, where it was held that the concession fee is not a tax, duty, cess, or fee within the meaning of section 43B and is therefore deductible on accrual basis. The Tribunal held that the nature of the concession fee and the terms of the agreement remain unchanged, and the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee. The AO was directed to verify the actual quantum of expenditure and allow deduction accordingly.

(d) Deduction under section 80IA(4) on guarantee commission income

The assessee received guarantee commission of Rs. 1.8 crores from its wholly owned subsidiary BAHL for guaranteeing borrowings raised by BAHL. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) on this income.

The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the deduction on the ground that the guarantee commission income was not derived from the core airport infrastructure business but from a non-airport activity, i.e., hotel operations, which are excluded from the definition of airport activities under the concession agreement.

The Tribunal upheld this view, observing that although the hotel supports the broader airport infrastructure, the guarantee commission is a distinct financial transaction lacking direct nexus with the eligible infrastructure business. The Tribunal held that the guarantee commission income is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4).

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The entire income earned by the assessee in the form of revenue share towards utilization of premises is derived from the business of the assessee and eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA."

"The classification of income as non-aeronautical for regulatory disclosure cannot be taken as a basis for denial of deduction under section 80IA."

"Interest income earned on fixed deposits maintained under loan conditions has a direct nexus with the business and is eligible for deduction under section 80IA."

"Advances by a holding company to its subsidiary for business purposes, supported by commercial expediency, are eligible for deduction of interest on borrowed funds under section 36(1)(iii), following the Supreme Court ruling in SA Builders Ltd."

"The concession fee payable under the concession agreement is not a tax, duty, cess or fee within the meaning of section 43B and is deductible on accrual basis."

"Guarantee commission income received from a subsidiary for non-airport activities lacks direct nexus with the eligible infrastructure business and is not eligible for deduction under section 80IA."

"Income must have a direct and proximate nexus with the eligible business to qualify for deduction under section 80IA."

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes and partly allowed the assessee's cross-objection, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders with respect to non-aeronautical revenue, interest income, and interest disallowance but remanding other miscellaneous income issues to the AO for factual verification.

---