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

Ultimate Flexipack Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2199/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble & Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Vs Dcit 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Central Circle-18 Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash-1 Ara Centre,E-2, Jhandewalan New Delhi Aaacu6565D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Ultimate Flexipack Ltd. Central Circle-18 305, 3Rd Floor, Bhanot Corner, Ara Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Pamposh Enclave, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1 New Delhi Aaacu6565D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 80Section 80I

…the purpose of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, the income of the eligible undertaking has to be computed on standalone basis and any device adopted for reduction/inflation is not permissible as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (para 15). The Ld. AR further submitted that in the following cases, it has been consistently held that for the purpose of deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act, while computing the income derived of the eligible undertaking, it is only those very income which has the direct nexus to the manufacturing activity, has to be taken into account and…

Premier Nutraceutical Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7148/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…2,27,290/- was earned. I find that similar ITAs No. 6226 & 7148/Mum/2017 issue had come up before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC) has held as under: “II-Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings etc. after certain dates (Computation of) - Assessment years 1989-90 to 199293 - Whether where interest earned by assessee from 'B' had direct nexus with business, it was required to be considered as '…

Premier Nutraceutical Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6226/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Karthikeyan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…2,27,290/- was earned. I find that similar ITAs No. 6226 & 7148/Mum/2017 issue had come up before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349 (SC) has held as under: “II-Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Profits and gains from industrial undertakings etc. after certain dates (Computation of) - Assessment years 1989-90 to 199293 - Whether where interest earned by assessee from 'B' had direct nexus with business, it was required to be considered as '…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year ITA No of AO ITA NO of Assessee 2000-01 NA 4410/Del/2003 2001-02 3426/Del/2003 NA 2002-03 1308/Del/2006 1271/Del/2006 2003-04 NA 2815/Del/2008 2004-05 3104/del/2008 3242/Del/2008 2005-06 3920/Del/2009 3724/ Del/2009 2006-07 3314/Del/2010 3393/Del/2010 2007-08 2479/Del/2011 2596/Del/2011 2008-09 4975/del/2012 4793/Del/2012 The Addl. Commissioner of Jubilant Life sciences Vs. Income Tax Limited & Formerly known as The Assistant Commissioner of M/s.…

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year ITA No of AO ITA NO of Assessee 2000-01 NA 4410/Del/2003 2001-02 3426/Del/2003 NA 2002-03 1308/Del/2006 1271/Del/2006 2003-04 NA 2815/Del/2008 2004-05 3104/del/2008 3242/Del/2008 2005-06 3920/Del/2009 3724/ Del/2009 2006-07 3314/Del/2010 3393/Del/2010 2007-08 2479/Del/2011 2596/Del/2011 2008-09 4975/del/2012 4793/Del/2012 The Addl. Commissioner of Jubilant Life sciences Vs. Income Tax Limited & Formerly known as The Assistant Commissioner of M/s.…

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 43(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year ITA No of AO ITA NO of Assessee 2000-01 NA 4410/Del/2003 2001-02 3426/Del/2003 NA 2002-03 1308/Del/2006 1271/Del/2006 2003-04 NA 2815/Del/2008 2004-05 3104/del/2008 3242/Del/2008 2005-06 3724/ Del/2009 3920/Del/2009 2006-07 3314/Del/2010 3393/Del/2010 2007-08 2497/Del/2011 2596/Del/2011 2008-09 4975/del/2012 4793/Del/2012 The Addl. Commissioner of Jubilant Life sciences Vs. Income Tax Limited & Formerly known as The Assistant Commissioner of M/s.…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 931/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…f Rs. 16,34,58,692/- out of total claim of Rs. 53,25,79,553/; as made by the lower authorities. The above disallowance figure involves excise duty refund amount of Rs. 8,12,71,702/-. The DRP quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 in concluding the above excise refund to be not an income derived from the eligible industrial undertaking. We find that earlier co-ordinate bench in assessment year 2007-08(supra) had followed hon’ble Apex court’s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steel Ltd. Civil Appeal no.7622/2014 in holding that such a refund by way of an incentive subsid…

Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 860/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…f Rs. 16,34,58,692/- out of total claim of Rs. 53,25,79,553/; as made by the lower authorities. The above disallowance figure involves excise duty refund amount of Rs. 8,12,71,702/-. The DRP quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 in concluding the above excise refund to be not an income derived from the eligible industrial undertaking. We find that earlier co-ordinate bench in assessment year 2007-08(supra) had followed hon’ble Apex court’s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steel Ltd. Civil Appeal no.7622/2014 in holding that such a refund by way of an incentive subsid…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2286/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…f Rs. 16,34,58,692/- out of total claim of Rs. 53,25,79,553/; as made by the lower authorities. The above disallowance figure involves excise duty refund amount of Rs. 8,12,71,702/-. The DRP quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 in concluding the above excise refund to be not an income derived from the eligible industrial undertaking. We find that earlier co-ordinate bench in assessment year 2007-08(supra) had followed hon’ble Apex court’s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steel Ltd. Civil Appeal no.7622/2014 in holding that such a refund by way of an incentive subsid…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solution(India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 2399/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.R.Soni, CIT-DR &
Section 80I

…f Rs. 16,34,58,692/- out of total claim of Rs. 53,25,79,553/; as made by the lower authorities. The above disallowance figure involves excise duty refund amount of Rs. 8,12,71,702/-. The DRP quoted hon’ble apex court’s decision in Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 in concluding the above excise refund to be not an income derived from the eligible industrial undertaking. We find that earlier co-ordinate bench in assessment year 2007-08(supra) had followed hon’ble Apex court’s recent decision in CIT vs. Meghalaya Steel Ltd. Civil Appeal no.7622/2014 in holding that such a refund by way of an incentive subsid…

B A International, Meerut vs. ITO, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5691/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5691/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S B. A. International, Vs Income Tax Officer, 35/14, Chameli Sadan Purani Haldwani, Delhi Chungi, Meerut Uttrakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahfb0501C Assessee By : P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.02.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 23.05.2017. 2. Only Issue Involved In The Appeal Is That The Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,70,794/- On Account Of Carriage Out Ward Charges.

For Appellant: P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 80I

…r years 3 B A International such a disallowance was made by the revenue could not be controverted by the ld. Departmental Representative. 8. The decisions relied upon by the lower authorities are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court was confronted that the issue of DEPB licence received by way of export incentives and the Court found that the receipt was accrued on export which was undertaken after completion of manufacture and had no direct nexus with the manufacturing. 9. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC), the is…

M/S. Schutz Dishman Biotech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1947/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…n value of foreign currency and not the value of goods exported. The view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 183 CTR (SC) 99 : (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India vs. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218. Therefore, it is held that exchange fluctuation gain is not an income derived from the qualified activity given in section 10B and so the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction under section 10B based on the reasons given by him in para 9 of the assessment order (which are not repeated here) are upheld. 8.5. However, so far as th…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Schutz Dishman Biotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1909/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1909/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1947/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1.The Dcit 1. Schutz Disman बनाम/ Circe-8, Ahmedabad Biotech Ltd. Vs. Ahmedabad 2. Schutz Dishman Biotech 2. The Dcit Ltd. Circle-8 Bhadraraj Chambers Ahmedabad Nr.Swastik Cross Road Navrangpura, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs 0988C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri Parimal Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Jalwani, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 36(1)(va)Section 41

…n value of foreign currency and not the value of goods exported. The view is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 183 CTR (SC) 99 : (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India vs. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218. Therefore, it is held that exchange fluctuation gain is not an income derived from the qualified activity given in section 10B and so the action of assessing officer in not allowing deduction under section 10B based on the reasons given by him in para 9 of the assessment order (which are not repeated here) are upheld. 8.5. However, so far as th…

Asst. CIT, Circle-6, Pune vs. Sakal Papers Limited, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 926/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das
Section 80I

…ve perused the case record and analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the CIT(Appeals) in his extensive order analyzing this issue has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT, reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) and further, it is observed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as follows: “5.5.4 The Apex Court in the case of Liberty India categorically held that the eligible profits are to be computed as if such eligible business is the only source of income of the assessee. However, the ITAT Pune in the case of Serum International Ltd. in ITA Nos. 290 to 292/PN…

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5196/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishintt Data Global Delivery Vs. Dcit, Services Ltd, Circle-13(1), No. 17, South End Road, New Delhi Bangalore Pan: Aabck7777J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 143

…for its supply is a step removed from the business of the industrial undertaking. The derivation of profits on the deposit made with Electricity Board cannot be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself.' 20. In Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218/183 Taxman 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the controversy of profit from Duty Exemption Payback Scheme (DEPB), Duty drawback incentives dealing with deduction under 80-IB of the Act held that the profit derived on sale of such DEPB and Duty draw back Entitlements by the assessee could not be said to be Profits and Gains "derived from…

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1707/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathanandshri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1707/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Vs. Large Taxpayer Unit – Ii, Corporate Office, P.O. Neyveli, Chennai – 600 101. Cuddalore District 607 801. [Pan: Aaacn 1121C]

For Appellant: Ms. Bharathi Krishnaprasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Homi Raji Vansh, CIT
Section 80ISection 8O

…relevant portion of the order from ITA No 2200/Mds/2016 for ay 2012-13 dt 10.8.2017 is extracted as under : “6.1 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 218, the disallowance was liable to be confirmed. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.1983/Mds/2011 for the AY 2008-09 & No.2029, 855 & 2077/Mds/2013 for the AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 vide order dated 28.04.2017.…

Manoj Kumar Johari, Sikar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 839/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 80I

…disallow the claim of the assessee while passing the impugned order U/s 154 of the Act. Alternatively, the ld AR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim by holding the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC) whereas in the subsequent decisions in case of CIT Vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 2017 as well as in the case of Topman Exports Vs. CIT 342 ITA 839/JP/2017_ 4 Manoj Kr. Johari Vs ACIT ITR 0049. The Duty Drawback and DEPB shall be part of the business income of the assessee and consequently the claim of deduction U/s 80IB of the Act…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1831/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…finding that export incentive in the form of duty draw back & interest subsidy did not qualify for deduction u/s 10B of the Act the AO relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Vs CIT (237 ITR 579) and Liberty India Vs CIT (317 ITR 218). In both the judgments the Supreme Court had held that the expression "derived from" as used in Section 80HH or Section 80lA had narrow meaning and therefore in order to get benefit of deduction u/s 80HH or Section 80lA it was necessary for the assessee to establish the direct or first degree nexus between the concerned receipt and the operation…

DCIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1830/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…finding that export incentive in the form of duty draw back & interest subsidy did not qualify for deduction u/s 10B of the Act the AO relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Vs CIT (237 ITR 579) and Liberty India Vs CIT (317 ITR 218). In both the judgments the Supreme Court had held that the expression "derived from" as used in Section 80HH or Section 80lA had narrow meaning and therefore in order to get benefit of deduction u/s 80HH or Section 80lA it was necessary for the assessee to establish the direct or first degree nexus between the concerned receipt and the operation…

DCIT, Cir-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Yamai Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 61/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

…finding that export incentive in the form of duty draw back & interest subsidy did not qualify for deduction u/s 10B of the Act the AO relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Vs CIT (237 ITR 579) and Liberty India Vs CIT (317 ITR 218). In both the judgments the Supreme Court had held that the expression "derived from" as used in Section 80HH or Section 80lA had narrow meaning and therefore in order to get benefit of deduction u/s 80HH or Section 80lA it was necessary for the assessee to establish the direct or first degree nexus between the concerned receipt and the operation…