What is Liberty India v. CIT ( authority for?

Interest and other income are not considered to be 'derived from' the business and are therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. Separate additions cannot be made for investments in movable property if the source of such investment has already been subjected to tax.

How many judgments cite Liberty India v. CIT (?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite Liberty India v. CIT ( (288 ITR 494), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Liberty India v. CIT ( come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 28, Section 56, Section 80P(2), Section 80P(2)(d).

Liberty India v. CIT ( (288 ITR 494)

Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co Op Credit Society Limited, Sunadholi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal stands PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 150/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co-Operative Credit Society, Ltd. At Post: Sunadholi, Dist. Belgavi-591136 Pan:Aaaaj2715N . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jadisiddeshwar Urban Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd. At Post: Sunadholi, Dist. Belgavi-591136 PAN:AAAAJ2715N . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Veeranna Murgod [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; Against D…

Kptcl Empls Co-Op Cr. Soc, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 113/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 Kptcl Employee’S Credit Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 01, Opp. Jnmc College, Nehru Nagar, Belgavi-590010 Pan:Aagfk2092Q . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Ashok Mudnur [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 KPTCL Employee’s Credit Co-operative Society, Ltd. 01, Opp. JNMC College, Nehru Nagar, Belgavi-590010 PAN:AAGFK2092Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Ashok Mudnur [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This captio…

The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Belgaum vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…icer’s view is unsustainable in law. The very view laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) stands reiterated in catena of judicial decision rendered by various hon’ble courts viz; ‘CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 16 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Ltd. Vs. PCIT ITA No.119/PAN/2025, AY: 2020-21 8. Keeping in mind former settled legal position now reverting back to the present impugned order under challenge a…

Shri Dinesh Man Singh, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- II, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Dinesh Man Singh Dcit Central Circle-Ii V. Shri Kanchan Khanna, 15/45- Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, B, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Allenganj, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Acqpm1819H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vikas Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…- made u/s 69 on account of 30 Kg of silver bars found may kindly be deleted and the appeal allowed. The assessee in support of its prayer places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Raj Pal Singh Ram Avatar 2007 288 ITR 494. Copy of aforesaid decision is enclosed as Annexure-5. The assessee in support of its averments herein before also finds support from following decisions: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Pullangoda Rubber Produce Co Ltd. vs, State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 have held that it would be open to the assessee making admission to show that it…

Marathwada Auto Cluster, Aurangabad vs. (Exemption), Pune

ITA 771/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.771/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Marathwada Auto Cluster, P-174, M.I.D.C., Waluj, Aurangabad-36 Pan : Aagcm3333D . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Naveen Gupta सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Pune [For Short “Cit(E)”] Dt. 31/03/2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Setting Aside The Order Of Assessment Order Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Passed By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-1, Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”].

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

…nce involving erroneous assessment prejudicial to interest of the revenue unless of course the Assessing Officer’s view is unsustainable in law. The very view stood reiterated in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 494 (P&H), CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) Grasim Industries vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR, 92 (Bom). We keeping in mind all this settle legal preposition, to revert back to the twin issues (supra) raised in the Ld. CIT(E)’s 263 order under challenge. 7. Admittedly, the case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny, which after…

Aqualfil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 950/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R

Section 250(6)Section 80I

…eceived, by appellant's own admission Rs. 2,05,558/~ was included in the deduction claimed u/s. 801 A (out of the total interest and other income of Rs. 54,32,913/-). As held in the cases of Liberty India v/s. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 494), interest and other income cannot be said to have been 'derived from' the business and is not entitled to deduction u/s. 801 A. A. O. is directed to re- compute the deduction allowable u/s.80IA by excluding the said-amount of interest and other income included by the appellant in the deduction claimed u/s, SQIA. This ground of appeal is partly a…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 542/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R

Section 250(6)Section 80I

…eceived, by appellant's own admission Rs. 2,05,558/~ was included in the deduction claimed u/s. 801 A (out of the total interest and other income of Rs. 54,32,913/-). As held in the cases of Liberty India v/s. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 494), interest and other income cannot be said to have been 'derived from' the business and is not entitled to deduction u/s. 801 A. A. O. is directed to re- compute the deduction allowable u/s.80IA by excluding the said-amount of interest and other income included by the appellant in the deduction claimed u/s, SQIA. This ground of appeal is partly a…

Aqualfil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 448/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R

Section 250(6)Section 80I

…eceived, by appellant's own admission Rs. 2,05,558/~ was included in the deduction claimed u/s. 801 A (out of the total interest and other income of Rs. 54,32,913/-). As held in the cases of Liberty India v/s. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 494), interest and other income cannot be said to have been 'derived from' the business and is not entitled to deduction u/s. 801 A. A. O. is directed to re- compute the deduction allowable u/s.80IA by excluding the said-amount of interest and other income included by the appellant in the deduction claimed u/s, SQIA. This ground of appeal is partly a…