Hyderabad Menzies Air Cargo Pvt.Ltd., R.R.Dist., R.R.Dist V. ITO, Ward-2(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1094/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6019 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SITARAMA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL JAIN; MANISH V SHAH

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1094/HYD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED AIR CARGO TERMINAL SHAMSHABAD 500049 PAN: AACCC 9611 N VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), 5 TH FLOOR SIGNATURE TOWERS KOTHAGUDA KONDAPUR HYDERABAD FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI MANISH V. SHAH & SHRI SUNIL JAIN FOR REVENUE : SHRI A. SITARAMA RAO, DR O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : GROUND 1: DENYING DEDUCTION OF RS.13,95,18,459/- UNDER SECTION 80-IA(4): 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-9 ('CIT (A)') ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING DEDUCTION FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,95,18,459/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 80-IA (4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT '). 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT: DATE O F HEARING : 06.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2017 ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 14 (I) THE APPELLANT SATISFIES ALL THE CRITERIA SET OU T UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80-IA (4) OF THE ACT; (II) THE APPELLANT IS A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY THAT IS OWNED BY A CONSORTIUM OF COMPANIES; (III) THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO AN OPERATION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE AIR CARGO TERMINAL AT THE AIRPORT AND THE SAID ARRANGEMENT HAS NOT ONLY BEEN ADMITTEDLY APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION ('MOCA') BUT ALSO NECESSARY SECURITY CLEARANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE BUREAU OF CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY WHICH IS PART OF CIVIL AVIATION MINISTRY, AND THE APPROVAL OF MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION (MOCA) IS TO BE READ IN REFERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CONCESSIONAIRE AND THE APPELLANT; (IV) THE O&M AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE CONCESSIONAIRE (AIRPORT OPERATOR) IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA; (V) THE O&M AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH CONCESSIONAIRE IS COTERMINUS WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO. BY THE CONCESSIONAIRE (THE AIRPORT OPERATOR) WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND, THEREFORE THE O&M AGREEMENT IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN CONCESSION AGREEMENT; (VI) IN VIEW OF PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (4 )(I) OF SE CTION 80-IA WHERE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, BEING THE BUILDING, HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY WAY OF A LEASE TO THE APPELLANT AFTER 01.04.1999 WHICH IS BEING UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE AIR CARGO TERMINAL, THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE, BEING THE APPELLANT, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION; (VII) SECTION 80-IA (4) DOES NOT CREATE ANY OBLIGAT ION ON THE APPELLANT TO NECESSARILY OWN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY; AND ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 14 (VIII) IT PERMITS ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF EITHER DEVELOPING OR OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY TO CLAIM TH E BENEFIT OF THE SAID SECTION SUBJECT TO FULFILLING T HE OTHER CONDITIONS THEREIN AND THE APPELLANT IS ADMITTEDLY OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE AIR CARGO TERMINAL SINCE 2008 AND IS, HENCE, ENTITLED TO THE SAID BENEFIT. 3. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA AS CLAIMED BY IT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SINCE IT SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS LAI D DOWN IN THE SAID SECTION. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO REFER TO AND RELY ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY IT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, AS PART OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. GROUND 2: THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND/OR AMEND OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 I N ITA NOS. 421 TO 423/HYD/2015 AND THE B BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE OR DERS DATED 6.10.2016. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS FILED BEFORE US. 3. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 14 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND TO TH E FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) HAS BEEN DI SALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CONSIDER ED AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A DEDUCTION , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NEEDS TO BE ALLO WED. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AND CLARITY, THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAINTAINING CARGO TERMIN AL AT SHAMSHABAD AIRPORT AT HYDERABAD, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ADMITTING INCOM E AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE RETURNS WERE INITIALLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE TAKEN-UP FOR SCRU TINY THROUGH CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED A LETTER DATED 28.11.2011 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FI LED A REPLY ON 21.12.2011 STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY R EGISTERED IN INDIA AND HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH GHIAL ('GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED') FOR OPERA TING AND MAINTAINING THE CARGO FACILITIES AT HYDERABAD INTER NATIONAL AIRPORT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH GHIAL IS NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY, THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS GRANTE D A RIGHT TO GHIAL TO ASSIGN CERTAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES TO O THER SERVICE PROVIDERS AND THEREFORE, GHIAL, HAS GRANTED FURTHER CONCESSION TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG BY SUB-LEASING PAR T OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING THE COMPANY CARRYING ON THE OPERATIO N OF THE AIRPORT BE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCE D WITH THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS, AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. HE OBSERVED THAT ONE OF THE CONDITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ENTERED INTO AN AGREE MENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LO CAL ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 14 AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY. HE OBSERVED T HAT THE AGREEMENT WITH GHIAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN AGR EEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS ASSESSEE COMPANY HA S NOT FURNISHED ANY CLINCHING EVIDENCE THAT THE GOVERNMEN T OF INDIA HAS ACCORDED PERMISSION TO GHIAL TO ASSIGN TH E WORK OF CARGO HANDLING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT UNDER CLAUSES (A) TO (C) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IA , THE REFERENCE IS ONLY TO SUCH AN ENTITY WHICH CAN J USTIFIABLY CLAIM THE DEDUCTION AND FURTHER THAT THE PROVISO TH ERETO ALSO SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THE TRANSFER THAT TAKES PLAC E BETWEEN THE TRANSFEROR ENTERPRISE AND THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE WHICH GOES TO IMPLY THAT ONLY THAT ENTERPRISE WHICH TRANSFERS THE ENTIRE ENTERPRISE TO A TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE AND THAT IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY A TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE CAN CLAI M THE DEDUCTION FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD AS IF THE TRANSF ER HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CREATED ANY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY EXCEPT OPERATING THE EX ISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH HAS ALSO ONLY BEEN LE ASED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE GHIAL WHICH COMPLET ED THE ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND IN CASE IT IS NO T IN A POSITION TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IT CAN TRA NSFER THE FACILITY IN ENTIRETY, BUT NOT ONLY A PIECE OF THE O PERATION TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SECTION 80IA(4) CONFERS BENEFITS ONLY ON ONE ENTITY. THUS, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. A GGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHILE REIT ERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW, HAS ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. (1) ACCORDING TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(B) , THE AGREEMENT OF GHIAL WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION AND A SEPARATE AND INDE PENDENT AGREEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE GOVERNMENTS IS N OT NECESSARY; (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, GMR INTERNATION AL AIRPORT IS A STATUTORY BODY; AND (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO T HE ABOVE, ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 14 APPROVALS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS OTHER DEPARTMENTS O F THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF CONSTITUTES THE AGREEMENT WITH TH E GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 5.1. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE PROPOSITIONS, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONCESS ION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, G OVERNMENT OF INDIA AND HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, HYDER ABAD LTD., ('HIAL'), WHEREIN THE HIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED THE EXC LUSIVE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE TO CARRY-OUT THE DEVELOPMENT, D ESIGN, FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION, COMMISSIONING, MAINTENANCE , OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE AIRPORT [ BUT EXCLU DING THE RIGHT TO CARRY-OUT THE RESERVED ACTIVITIES AND TO P ROVIDE COMMUNICATION AND NAVIGATION SURVEILLANCE/AIRTRAFFI C MANAGEMENT SERVICES WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROVID ED BY AAI]. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO ARTICLE 3.2.1 (B) WHICH PROVIDES THAT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RECOGNIZES THAT H IAL MAY CARRY-OUT ANY ACTIVITY OR BUSINESS IN CONNECTION WI TH OR RELATED TO THE ARRIVAL/DEPARTURE AND FOR HANDLING OF AIRCRA FT, PASSENGER'S BAGGAGE, CARGO AND/OR MAIL AT THE AIRPO RT. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, CARGO HANDLING IS ALSO AN ACTIVIT Y ASSIGNED TO HIAL, BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. FURTHER, BY VIRTU E OF ARTICLE 3.2.2. HIAL HAS FURTHER BEEN GRANTED RIGHT TO GRANT 'SERVI CE PROVIDER RIGHTS' (INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER RIGHT HOLDERS TO GRANT SUB-RIGHTS) TO ANY PERSON FO R THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING-OUT THE ACTIVITIES AND BUSINESSES DESCR IBED IN ARTICLE 3.2.1 ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS HIAL MAY DETERMINE ARE REASONABLY APPROPRIATE. 5.2. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE TRIPART ITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN GHIAL, MENZIES AVIATION PLC AND T HE ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE-232 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND M ORE PARTICULARLY PAGE NO.243 AND ARTICLE 2.1 OF THE AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO RENDER AND PROVIDE OR ARRANGE TO PROVIDE THE O & M SERVICES FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CARGO TERMINAL AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO HAVE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO LEVY AN D COLLECT CARGO CHARGES AND TO ARTICLE 2.3 THEREOF, UNDER WHICH GHIAL WARRANTS TO THE COMPANY TO BUILD THE CARGO BUILDING AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DESIGN SET OUT IN THE CARGO BUIL DING LEASE AGREEMENT WHILE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WARRANTED TO G HIAL THAT MENZIES SHALL BUILD THE FACILITIES/ADDITIONAL FACILITIES IN COMPLIANCE WITH CARGO AGREEMENTS AND THAT THE DESIG N, ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION, TESTING AND COMMISSION O F THE CARGO TERMINAL SHALL BE FREE FROM DEFECT AND OF CORRECT D ESIGN AND WORKMANSHIP, OF GOOD QUALITY AND INTERNATIONALLY AC CEPTED STANDARDS. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE C ARGO BUILDING LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 28.04.2006 BETWEEN T HE ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 14 ASSESSEE AND GHIAL, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE CARGO BU ILDING WAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY GHIAL AS PER THE SPECIFICATION S SET-OUT THEREIN AND AGREED TO BY MENZIES WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS FROM THE AIRPORT OPENING DATE ALONG WITH A RIGHT TO SUB-LEASE, LICEN SE ETC. 5.3. HE SUBMITTED THAT GHIAL HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) AS IT HAS NOT EARNED ANY PROFITS DURING THE YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE EARNED INCOME FROM CARGO OPERATIONS AND THE OPERATING EXPE NDITURE INCLUDES THE CONCESSIONAIRE FEE AND CONCESSIONAIRE RENT PAID TO GHIAL AND HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT E NTRIES IN ITS BOOKS I.E., P & L A/C AND SCHEDULE-L THERETO. 5.4. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS ON FACTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., REPORTED IN (2006) 155 TAXMANN 1 33 (HYD) (NAG) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SINCE GHIAL HAS BEEN AUTHORISED TO ASSIGN CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AND HAS ACCO RDINGLY ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR OP ERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CARGO FACILITY AT HYDERABAD INTE RNATIONAL AIRPORT, UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) , THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. FURTHER, AS REGARD S THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'TRANSFER' USED IN THE SAID PRO VISO ALSO, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE AB OVE DECISIONS WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE TERM 'TRANSFE R' SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN A CONSERVATIVE MANNER SO AS TO MEAN THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILIT Y TO THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY BUT IT ONLY MEANS THE HANDING O VER OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY TO THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY AT THE END OF THE CONCESSION/LICENSE PERIOD. 5.5. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT CARGO FACILI TY IS PART OF AIRPORT AND THEREFORE, 'INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY' UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF M/S. MENZI ES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD., IN ITA.NO.1160/BANG/20 12 DATED 30.01.2014 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, CHENNAI VS. AL LOGISTICS (P) LTD ., REPORTED IN (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 283 (MAD.). 5.5.1. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) ON PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHED IN A BUILDI NG TAKEN ON LEASE ALSO, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, P LACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LTD., REPORTED IN (1992) 62 TAXMANN 480 (SC) AND ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 14 ALSO IN THE CASE OF NARANG DIARY PRODUCTS REPORTED IN (1996) 85 TAXMAN 375 (SC). 5.5.2. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE CARGO FACILITY APPROVED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES IS AN 'INFRASTRUCTU RE FACILITY' UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE D ELHI HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., VS. ACIT REPOR TED IN (2012) 21 TAXMANN.COM 317 ( DELHI) AND CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHAVA) LTD ., REPORTED IN (2015) 58 TAXMANN.COM 78 (BOM.) RESPECTIVELY. 5.6. FINALLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF M/S. MENZIES AVIATION BOBB A (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD., (CITED SUPRA) FOR THE PROPOS ITION THE GHIAL IS ALSO A STATUTORY AUTHORITY LIKE BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., AND THEREFORE, THE AGRE EMENT WITH GHIAL IS AN AGREEMENT WITH A STATUTORY AUTHORITY. 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ELIGIBLE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) AS THE CONDITIONS SET-OUT THEREIN ARE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF OCEAN SPARKLE LTD., (CITED (SUP RA) HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CASE IS FACTUALLY DISTINGUI SHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. FURTHER, HE SUBMIT TED THAT SUB- LEASED CONTRACTORS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 6.1. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM VARIOUS GOVERNM ENT DEPARTMENTS TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CARGO FACIL ITY, IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING ENTERED INTO AN AGRE EMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ITSELF, THE LD. D.R. SUBMIT TED THAT THE APPROVALS GIVEN BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVER NMENT I.E., CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ETC., IS ONLY FOR CARRYING ON T HE FUNCTIONS EFFECTIVELY, BUT CANNOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE GIVEN THE APPROVAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE MAIN QUESTION BEFORE US FO R ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. FOR PROPER ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 9 OF 14 APPRECIATION OF THE CASE THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : (4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO-- (I) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH F ULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY :-- (A) IT IS OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY A CONSORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANIES OR BY AN AUTHORITY OR A BOARD OR A CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER BODY ESTABLISHED OR CONS TITUTED UNDER ANY CENTRAL OR STATE ACT ; (B) IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORIT Y OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY BODY FOR (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPE RATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAIN TAINING A NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY; (C) IT HAS STARTED OR STARTS OPERATING AND MAINTAIN ING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1995: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IS T RANSFERRED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 BY AN ENTERPRIS E WHICH DEVELOPED SUCH INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY (HEREAFTER R EFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS THE TRANSFEROR ENTERPRISE) TO ANOTH ER ENTERPRISE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE TRANS FEREE ENTERPRISE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AND MAINTA INING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON ITS BEHALF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, STATE GOVERN MENT, LOCAL AUTHORITY OR STATUTORY BODY, THE PROVISIONS O F THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE AS IF IT W ERE THE ENTERPRISE TO WHICH THIS CLAUSE APPLIES AND THE DED UCTION FROM PROFITS AND GAINS WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO SUCH TRANSF EREE ENTERPRISE FOR THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD DURING WHICH TH E TRANSFEROR ENTERPRISE WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTIO N, IF THE TRANSFER HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE. EXPLANATION.--FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'INF RASTRUCTURE FACILITY' MEANS-- (A) A ROAD INCLUDING TOLL ROAD, A BRIDGE OR A RAIL SYSTEM; (B) A HIGHWAY PROJECT INCLUDING HOUSING OR OTHER AC TIVITIES BEING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE HIGHWAY PROJECT; (C) A WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, IRRIGATION PROJECT, SANITATION AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM OR SOLID WA STE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; (D) A PORT, AIRPORT, INLAND WATERWAY, INLAND PORT O R NAVIGATIONAL CHANNEL IN THE SEA; ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 10 OF 14 7.1. FROM A LITERAL READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE NOT ONLY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, BUT IS ALSO ALLOWABLE IN C ASE OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTA INING AN INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CREATED ANY NEW INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY BUT IS ONLY DOING THE OPERATION ON THE EXISTING LEASED INFRASTRUCTURE FAC ILITY DEVELOPED BY GHIAL. THEREFORE, IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO SEE WHETHER THE CARGO FACILITY BEING OPERATED AND MAINT AINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN 'INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 7.2. GHIAL HAS DEVELOPED THE RAJIV GANDHI INTERNATI ONAL AIRPORT AT HYDERABAD. CARGO HANDLING FACILITY IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE AIRPORT. GHIAL HAS ASSIGNED THE OPERATION AN D MAINTENANCE OF THE CARGO FACILITY TO THE ASSESSEE. VIDE FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT, MENZIES HAS AGREED TO OWN, PROCURE , INSTALL AND COMMISSION THE FACILITIES AND THE ADDITIONAL FA CILITIES (IF ANY) AT THE CARGO BUILDING AND TO LEASE THE FACILIT IES AND ADDITIONAL FACILITIES (IF ANY) TO THE ASSESSEE AND VIDE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, GHIAL HAS GRANTED THE AS SESSEE THE RIGHT FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CARGO TERMINAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AL LOGISTI CS (P) LTD (CITED SUPRA) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT CARG O FACILITY IS ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT . WE FIND THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CONSID ERING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE THEREIN OPERATING AND MAINTAIN ING A CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION (CFS), IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S 80IA(4). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CFS ARE 'CUSTOMS AREA' ATTACHED TO A PORT AND THE WORK RELATED TO CUSTOMS IS PERFORMED AT THESE I NLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS/CONTAINER FREIGHT STATIONS AND ACC ORDINGLY, INLAND CONTAINER DEPOTS AND CFS ARE 'INLAND PORTS' A S THEY CARRY OUT FUNCTIONS LIKE WARE HOUSING, CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND TRANSPORT OF GOODS FROM ITS LOCATION TO THE SEAPORT S AND VICE VERSA BY RAILWAY OR BY TRUCKS IN CONTAINERS. 7.3. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS HA NDLING THE CARGO FACILITY WHICH IS INTO SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. FU RTHER, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OCE AN SPARKLES LTD HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS RE QUIRED TO FULFILL THE DEVELOPERS' OBLIGATION PERTAINING TO OP ERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PORTS AS LAID DOWN UNDER THE ORIGINA L AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPERS AND SPECIFIED AUTH ORITIES, IT IS EXACTLY THE SITUATION WHICH HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATE D BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS THE ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 11 OF 14 OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE THEREIN THAT TWO PERSONS A RE NOT TO GET THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE S AME FACILITY, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM T HEREIN WAS RESTRICTED TO ITS PERFORMANCE OF JOB AND IT WAS CON CERNED WITH THAT ACTIVITY ONLY. 7.4. UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA(4) , THE DEFINITION OF 'INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY' INCLUDES AIRPORT WITHIN I TS SCOPE AND THE CARGO FACILITY IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE AIRPORT. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD (CITED SUPRA) H AS HELD THE 'CARGO FACILITY' TO BE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT GH IAL HAS CONSTRUCTED THE CARGO BUILDING AS PER THE SPECIFICA TION OF THE MENZIES AND MENZIES HAS PROVIDED THE FACILITIES AT THE CARGO BUILDING AND WHILE GHIAL HAS LEASED OUT THE CARGO T ERMINAL TO THE ASSESSEE, MENZIES HAS LEASED THE FACILITIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO OPE RATE AND MAINTAIN THE CARGO FACILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION OF GHIAL TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE FACILITY BY VIRTU E OF THE CONCESSION GRANTED BY THE GOVT. OF INDIA. EACH ASSE SSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(I) OF THE A CT ONLY IN RELATION TO THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY IT AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY DUPLICATION OF THE CLAIM. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE 'CARGO FACILITY' OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. 7.5. THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTRAL GOVT., OR STATE GOVT. OR LOCAL AUTHORITY OR A STATUTORY BODY A S PROVIDED U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GOVT. OF INDIA HAS AUTHORIZED GHIAL TO GRANT FURTHE R RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF ANY OF ITS ACTIVITIES, PURSUANT TO WHICH GHIAL HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REFORE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENTER IN TO A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH THE GOVT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENT ION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH IN THE CASE OF OCEAN SPARKLES LTD. IN THE SAID CASE, TH E ASSESSEE THEREIN, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION AND M AINTENANCE OF PORTS, CARGO SERVICES AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES , HAD ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POR T, WITH DEVELOPERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT AND OPER ATION OF PORTS AND HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIF IED AUTHORITIES I.E. STATE GOVT. FOR DEVELOPMENT AND MAI NTENANCE OF CERTAIN PORTS. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT L ATER ON, UNDER AN AGREEMENT, THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE S ERVICES OF SAID PORTS WERE SUB-CONTRACTED BY THE DEVELOPER TO ASSESSEE ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 12 OF 14 COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH SPECIFIED AUTHORITIES AFTER 1-4-99 AND HELD THAT AS PER THE P ROVISO TO SECTION 80IA(4)(I) , THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROVISO T O SECTION 80IA(4)(I) TO HOLD THAT THE PROVISO AIMS AT QUALIFYING THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISES, AS ENTERPRISE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECTION PROVIDED, THE OTHER CONDITIONS B E SATISFIED AND THAT THE PROVISO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY DIRECT AG REEMENT BETWEEN THE TRANSFEREE ENTERPRISE AND THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY. 7.6. FURTHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.L. LOGISTICS P. LTD., WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AC CEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS, WHICH WERE DU LY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INSIST FOR SPECIFIC EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN HAD APPLIED TO THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR SETTING-UP OF A CFS AT HA LDIA FOR HANDLING, IMPORT AND EXPORT OF CARGO WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY, SUBJECT TO EXECUTION OF CERTAIN DO CUMENTS OF COMPLIANCE OF OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS STATED IN THE LETTER. TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION, THE HON'BLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT SINCE THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO NEED TO INSIST FOR THE SPECIFIC EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENTS. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED TO THE GOVERNME NT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION FOR REGISTRATION AS A RE GULATED AGENT FOR HANDLING THE CARGO FACILITIES AT HYDERABAD INTE RNATIONAL AIRPORT AND VIDE LETTER DATED 24.11.2008, THE ASSES SEE WAS GRANTED THE REGISTRATION WHILE GHIAL HAS GRANTED TH E ASSESSEE THE RIGHT TO HANDLE THE CARGO FACILITIES BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED ALSO AS A 'SERVICE PROVIDER RIGHT HO LDER' AS STIPULATED UNDER THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT ITSELF AN D THAT FURTHER THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS RECOGNIZED THE ASSE SSEE AS 'A REGULATED AGENT' AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN GIVEN APPROVAL BY THE MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, IT IS N OT NECESSARY TO ENTER INTO A SPECIFIC AND INDEPENDENT AGREEMENT WIT H THE GOVERNMENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 13 OF 14 7.7. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DEFINITION OF 'REGULATED AGENT' UNDER CLAUSE (5) OF RULE-2 OF THE AIRCRAFT (SECURITY) RULES, 2011. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE BEING ACCEPTED AS A REGULATED AGENT UNDER THE AIRCRAFT (SECURITY) RULES, 2011 NEEDS NO SPECIFIC AGREEMENT W ITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR CARRYING ON THE WORK. HOWEVER, WE AR E UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE T HE DEFINITION OF A 'REGULATED AGENT' GIVEN IN THE AIRCRAFT (SECURI TY) RULES, 2011 IS ONLY TO GOVERN THE SECURITY MEASURES FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATORS AND IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESS EE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN AGENT TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CARGO FACILITIES AT THE AIRPORT. IN FACT, IT IS THE OTHER WAY ROUND, I.E., THE PERSON OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE CARGO FACI LITIES IS RECOGNIZED AS A 'REGULATED AGENT' WHO CAN FUNCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AIRCRAFT (SECURITY) RULES, 2011. 7.8. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MENZIES AVIATION BOBBA , BANGALORE IN M.P.NO.19/BANG/2014 IN ITA.NO.1160/BANG/2012 DAT ED 05.10.2015 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED BANGAL ORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED AS A STATUTORY BODY U NDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRI BUNAL HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THEREIN I.E., THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITION FILED BY M/S. FLEMINGO DUTY-FREE SHOPS P. LTD., AGAI NST THE BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,('BIAL') WHERE IN THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD BIAL TO BE A STATUTORY AUTHORITY AS IT IS DISCHARGING STATUTORY FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO SUCH DECISION IN RESPECT OF HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD., BY THE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT I.E., HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH. HOWEVER, SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIFIC AND INDEPENDENT AGREEMENT WITH T HE GOVERNMENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) , WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE A T THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOW ED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. 5. BOTH OF US I.E. THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND JUDIC IAL MEMBER WERE SIGNATORIES TO THIS ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS ALLOWED. ITA NO 1094 OF 2016 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO P L TD HYDERABAD PAGE 14 OF 14 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2017. VINODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1 HYDERABAD MENZIES AIR CARGO PVT. L:TD, AIR CARGO TERMINAL, RAJIV GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, SHAMSHABAD 500049, RR DISTT 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) 5 TH FLOOR, SIGNATURE TOWERS, KOTHAGUDA, KOHDAPUR, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-9 HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 2 HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER