Liberty India v. CIT

317 ITR 218Supreme Court of India2009#109 most cited

What is Liberty India v. CIT authority for?

The Supreme Court clarified that for profits and gains to be eligible for deductions under sections like 10B, 80IA, or 80IB, the income must be "derived from" or have a direct nexus to the eligible business activity. Income from incidental sources like the sale of scrips/licenses or interest on employee loans is generally not considered as derived from the eligible business for such deductions.

571

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Liberty India v. CIT · 317 ITR 218 · section 10B · section 80IA · section 80IB · profits derived from · direct nexus · eligible business · export undertaking deduction · sale of scrips income · interest income deduction

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 349

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 10BSection 80IBSection 147Section 80IASection 1961Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 75section 80hsection 80hhsection 80hhcsection 80icsection 80ibeligible businessdeduction under section 80iasection 80isection 80iadisallowance u/s 14agross total income

Judgments citing Liberty India v. CIT

V. K. Industries, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 30(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6929/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 6929/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Nitin FuriaFor Respondent: Shri Vijayn Kumar G Subramaniyan
Section 28Section 80Section 80I

…A) and (11B) shall be eligible for deduction subject to fulfilment of conditions specified in sub-section(2). The expression ‘derived from’ used in section is of paramount significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT , 317 ITR 218 has held that the words ‘derived from’ used in section 80IA/80IB of the Act intend to cover sources not beyond the first degree. It is not in dispute that the industrial undertaking of the assessee qualifies for deduction under section 80 IB of the Act. The issue before us is in narrow compass i.e. whether amount received on redemption of ERP has…

M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4882/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…cash credit in respect of share application money. 3.2.15 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (ITA 1613 of 2014 dated 20.03.2017) has held that the Supreme Court decision in CIT v Lovely Exports P Ltd (317 ITR 218) is applicable for all Assessment Years prior to AY 2013-14. In the Supreme Court decision in Lovely Exports P Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the amounts have been subscribed by bogus shareholders, it is for the Revenue to proceed against such shareholders by reopening their assessments. This being the law of the land, it…

ITO - 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Multiventure Financial Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhala, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(47)

…cash credit in respect of share application money. 3.2.15 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (ITA 1613 of 2014 dated 20.03.2017) has held that the Supreme Court decision in CIT v Lovely Exports P Ltd (317 ITR 218) is applicable for all Assessment Years prior to AY 2013-14. In the Supreme Court decision in Lovely Exports P Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the amounts have been subscribed by bogus shareholders, it is for the Revenue to proceed against such shareholders by reopening their assessments. This being the law of the land, it…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Nlc India Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 952/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…d submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench for earlier assessment years, where the Tribunal after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (317 ITR 218), upheld re-computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act after excluding other income being miscellaneous income, 9 I.T.A. Nos.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 interest income, recovery from staff, etc. The facts for the impugned year are identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal for earlier years and hence, there is no…

ACIT Ltu 2, Chennai vs. Nlc India Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 953/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…d submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench for earlier assessment years, where the Tribunal after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (317 ITR 218), upheld re-computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act after excluding other income being miscellaneous income, 9 I.T.A. Nos.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 interest income, recovery from staff, etc. The facts for the impugned year are identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal for earlier years and hence, there is no…

Nlc India Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT Ltu II, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 869/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…d submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench for earlier assessment years, where the Tribunal after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (317 ITR 218), upheld re-computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act after excluding other income being miscellaneous income, 9 I.T.A. Nos.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 interest income, recovery from staff, etc. The facts for the impugned year are identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal for earlier years and hence, there is no…

Nlc India Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT Ltu II, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for both assessment years are dismissed

ITA 868/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 868 & 869/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Nlc India Ltd., The Dcit, (Formerly Known As Neyveli V. Company Circle Vi(4), Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Chennai. Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 952 & 953/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, M/S. Nlc India Ltd., Company Circle Vi(4), V. (Formerly Known As Neyveli Chennai. Lignite Corporation Ltd.), Block-1, Corporate Office, Neyveli Township, Cuddalore District, Neyveli – 607 801. Pan: Aaacn1121C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, Ca : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, Cit

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan Ramabadran, CA
Section 14ASection 80I

…d submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Bench for earlier assessment years, where the Tribunal after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (317 ITR 218), upheld re-computation of amount eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act after excluding other income being miscellaneous income, 9 I.T.A. Nos.868, 869, 952 & 953/CHNY/2018 interest income, recovery from staff, etc. The facts for the impugned year are identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal for earlier years and hence, there is no…

Thakur Infraprojects P. Ltd, Raigad vs. DCIT-Panvel Circle, Raigad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 742/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R
Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.742 & 743/M/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s. Thakur Infraprojects DCIT-Panvel Circle Pvt. Ltd., Panvel Circle Plot No.265/1, Dist. Raigad Vs. Om Sadanika, Uran Road, Panvel, Dist. Raigad PAN: AACCT6451F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The above titled…

Continental Engines P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4469/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 10ASection 10BSection 132Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ngly, he held that income from interest was not eligible for deduction under section 10B of the Act. For excluding of miscellaneous income from deduction, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd (SC) 317 ITR 218 and Pandiyan Chemicals( 262 ITR 258). 9.1 In the case of Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat after considering various decisions on the issue in dispute held as under: “62. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the dividend income, profit on sale of fixed assets, profit on sale of investment…

Continental Engines P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4468/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 10ASection 10BSection 132Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ngly, he held that income from interest was not eligible for deduction under section 10B of the Act. For excluding of miscellaneous income from deduction, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd (SC) 317 ITR 218 and Pandiyan Chemicals( 262 ITR 258). 9.1 In the case of Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat after considering various decisions on the issue in dispute held as under: “62. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the dividend income, profit on sale of fixed assets, profit on sale of investment…

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 are partly allowed

ITA 2161/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2160 & 2161/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Nokia India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. CIT, TEC, Level 18, DLF Cyber City, Phase- New Delhi III, Building No. 5, Tower A, Gurgaon PAN: AAACN2170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopa, Adv Shri Ankul Goyal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/08/2020 Date of pronouncement 26/10/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are 2 appeals filed by the asse…

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004 – 05 and 2005 – 06 are partly allowed

ITA 2160/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2160 & 2161/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Nokia India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Addl. CIT, TEC, Level 18, DLF Cyber City, Phase- New Delhi III, Building No. 5, Tower A, Gurgaon PAN: AAACN2170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopa, Adv Shri Ankul Goyal, Adv Revenue by: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/08/2020 Date of pronouncement 26/10/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are 2 appeals filed by the asse…

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4642/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…as earned interest income on FS, ICD and Bonds. The source of first degree is FD, ICD and bonds and therefore, the interest income is not derived from the industrial undertaking. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: i. Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Ritesh Industries Ltd. (2005) 142 Taxman 551 (Del.) iii. CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 104 Taxman 204 (SC) iv. Cambay Electrical Supply In. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 113 ITR 673 (SC) v. India Commet International vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 673 (SC) vi. CIT vs. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. 259 ITR 403 (Madras) vii. CIT vs. Nagesh Knitware Ltd.…

Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT-Ltu Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4454/DEL/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 80HSection 80I

…as earned interest income on FS, ICD and Bonds. The source of first degree is FD, ICD and bonds and therefore, the interest income is not derived from the industrial undertaking. The Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: i. Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Ritesh Industries Ltd. (2005) 142 Taxman 551 (Del.) iii. CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 104 Taxman 204 (SC) iv. Cambay Electrical Supply In. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 113 ITR 673 (SC) v. India Commet International vs. ITO (2013) 354 ITR 673 (SC) vi. CIT vs. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. 259 ITR 403 (Madras) vii. CIT vs. Nagesh Knitware Ltd.…

Unitedhealth Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

ITA 6665/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupham Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 154Section 254Section 92C

…0B were concerned. 11 10. In Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278/129 Taxman 539 which dealt with Section 80HH and Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC), which interpreted Section 801B of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC), which interpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 403/128 Taxman 11 which interpreted Section 10A of the Act.…

M/S. Motif India Infotech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1645/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 10ASection 10A(1)

…ons of Section 80IB/80IC. In the present case, export subsidy is in the nature of cash incentive and shown as a profit in profit and loss account and does not go to reduce the cost export. The facts of this case is similar to the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that DEPB is an incentive and ITA No. 1645/Ahd/14 [TTEC India Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2005-06 - 4 - it is given under duty exemption remission scheme which is essentially an export incentive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that DEPB/duty draw back were incentives which flow from…

D.C.I.T., -Central Circle-2(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Ideal Heights Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 158/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2020AY 2012-13
Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…1500 sq. ft. and hence it is income attributable and does not qualify for 80IB and as per various 2 AY 2012-13 M/s. Ideal Heights P.Ltd judgments in the case of ACIT Vs. Bengal Housing Development Ltd. and Kolkata Bench, ITAT and Liberty India vs. CIT(2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). 4. Facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee has claimed the benefit of deduction u/s. 80 IB(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to the tune of Rs. 46,93,10,980/-. Accordingly, the assessee was directed by the AO to furnish the details with regard to the housing-project along with the necessary mandat…

United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…nd 10B were concerned. 10. In Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278/129 Taxman 539 which dealt with Section 80HH and Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC), which interpreted Section 801B of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC), which interpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 403/128 Taxman 11 which interpreted Section 10A of the Act.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 193/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2011-12 Optum Global Solutions (India) Vs Dcit, Private Limited Circle-27(1), (Formerly Known As United Health Cr Building, Group Information Services Pvt. New Delhi. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Optum Global Solutions (India) Circle-27(1), Private Limited Cr Building, (Formerly Known As United Health New Delhi Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd.), 11Th Floor, Tower A, Dlf Towers Jasola, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca6769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao & Shri S. Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2020

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…nd 10B were concerned. 10. In Motorola India Electronics (P.) Ltd. (supra) reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 278/129 Taxman 539 which dealt with Section 80HH and Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC), which interpreted Section 801B of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579/104 Taxman 204 (SC), which interpreted Section 80HH and the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Menon Impex (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 403/128 Taxman 11 which interpreted Section 10A of the Act.…

Amritrashi Infra(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-4, Kolkata

ITA 838/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amritrashi Infra Private Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- (Pan: Aakca2544E) 4, Kolkata.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…und satisfied. (ii) Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in CIT vis. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 218 in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle t…