AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 between GOI and BIAL provides for Service Providers Right Holders ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant 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 dated 24.6.2016 in ITA No.22/Bang/2014 for AY 2010-11. (iv) Order dated 18.1.2021 in ITA No.938/Bang/2019 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 of the opinion that this issue was considered by the Tribunal while adjudicating the issue in MP No.19/Bang/2014 dated 18.09.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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/Bang/2014 dated 18.09.2014 the Tribunal's order was recalled only to reconsider the issue as to whether the Bangalore International Airport Ltd. [BIAL] is a stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.12.2008, 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 International Airport Ltd., along with 2 other private parties as respondents. The said case came be filed by the petitioner therein on the ground that it was not issued the tender do....