TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the denial of the deduction of Rs. 38,41,08,439/- claimed by the appellant u/s.80IA of the Act, on the ground that the appellant had not directly entered into agreement with Government or any statutory body and thus the condition mentioned in clause [b] of section 80IA[4][i] of the Act was not complied with by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the concession agreement entered into be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal is that the denial of the deduction of Rs. 38,41,08,439/- claimed by the appellant u/s.80IA of the Act, on the ground that the assessee had not directly entered into agreement with Government or any statutory body and thus the condition mentioned in clause [b] of section 80IA[4][i] of the Act was not complied with under the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the earlier orders of Tribunal in assessee's own case in the following cases:- (i) Order dated 30.1.2014 in ITA No.1160/Bang/2012 for AY 2009-10. (ii) Order dated 05.10.2015 in ITA No.1160/Bang/2012 & MP No.19/Bang/2014 for AY 2009-10. (iii) Order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied. Further, it was submitted that the assessee is a sub-contractor and a sub-contractor cannot be granted deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in earlier years in assessee's own case as cited above. Being so, taking a consistent view, we are of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case being the same for this assessment year also, assessee has to be granted deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. 7. Regarding the arguments of the ld. DR that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relied on by the Tribunal in earlier year cannot be applied to the facts of present case, we are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s.Flemingo Dutyfree Shops Pvt. Ltd., (cited supra) has held BIAL to be a statutory body. Since the Hon'ble High Court's decision is prior to the order of the Tribunal but has been brought to the notice of this Tribunal only subsequent to the passing of the order by the Tribunal, the decision of the Tribunal needs re-consideration on this issue. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is recalled only to re-consider the issue as to whether BIAL is a statutory body u/s 80IA(4)(i) of the Act." MP No.19/Bang/2014 and ITA No.1160/Bang/2012 by order dated 05.10.2015 "2. The appeal was earlier heard and disposed of by order dated 30.01.2014. However, vide order in MP No.19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on u/s 80IA(4) is not allowable. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Flemingo Duty Free Shops Pvt. Ltd. in WP No.14215 of 2006 dated 19.12.2008, had an occasion to go into the shareholdings of various parties in BIAL and after detailed examination of facts has held the BIAL to be a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is on this ground, that the order of the Tribunal was recalled and reheard at length. 4. On going through the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition, we find that the Hon'ble High Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by M/s. Flemingo Duty Free Shops Pvt. Ltd. against the Union of India, the Airport Authority of India and the Bangalore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aintenance of infrastructure facility u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act and holding in favour of the assessee, on the other hand held against the assessee that assessee did not satisfy the condition of entering into an agreement with Central or State Governments or local authorities or statutory body. However, vide order dated 5.10.2015 in MP No.19/Bang/2014 observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.14215/2006 dated 19.12.2008 in the case of M/s. Flemingo Dutyfree Shops (P) Ltd. held that BIAL is a statutory body and therefore the order of the Tribunal dated 30.1.2014 was recalled to consider this aspect of the matter and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Similarly for AY 2010-11 in ITA No.22/Bang/2014 in assessee's ow....