Brief of the case:
Revenue filed above appeal against the order of CIT (A) who held that BIAL is statutory body as per requirement of section 80IA (4) (i) of the Income-tax Act. Tribunal held that BIAL is not a statutory body as per requirement of the section. Later on it was held in another writ petition that BIAL is a statutory body as per Article 12 of the constitution of India. On the basis of this judgement a miscellaneous petition was filed and the same was recalled to reconsider the sole issue that whether BIAL is a statutory body. After considering the judgment of the Hon’ble HC in writ petition ITAT held that BIAL is a statutory body.
Facts of the case:
- The appeal was earlier heard and disposed of by order dated 30.01.2014 in which ITAT held that the activity carried on by the assessee is infrastructure development under section 80IA(4), but as far as its agreement with BIAL is concerned, it was held that the status of the BIAL is not that of statutory authority and therefore, disallowed the deduction under section 80IA of the Act.
- Tribunal also held that the activity carried on by the assessee is infrastructure development, but since the major shareholders in BIAL are not Government authorities, it is not a statutory authority and therefore the deduction u/s 80IA(4) is not allowable.
- Tribunal also have held that BIAL is not a statutory authority but is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is not created by any statutory body or law. It was held that though it is constituted as per the policy of the Central Government, it cannot be said to be statutory body as required under section 80IA(4) of the Act with its public-private partnership.
- Hon’ble Karnataka HC 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.
Contention of the revenue:






