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

M/S Optek Disc Mfg Co., Baddi vs. DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Arsh KaushalFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…ances, it was his prayer that penalty is not attracted. ITA 179/CHD/2018 A.Y.2010-11 Page 2 of 3 3. The ld. Sr.DR relied upon the order. It was his submission that the claim was contrary to the decision of the Apex Court as held in Liberty India Ltd. Vs CIT 317 ITR 218. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that in the facts of the present case, the AO in the course of the assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee firm had earned interest income of Rs. 18,76,802/- as interest received on FDRs which had been given as margin money for bank guarantee. The assesse…

Vardhman Holdings Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

…arly on account of scheme of the government granting the subsidy. R&D subsidy also,we hold ,is not entitled to exemption u/s 10B of the Act. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the apex court in Liberty India vs Commissioner of Income Tax(2009) 317 ITR 218,wherein it was held that incentives received on account of schemes of government cannot be said to be derived from the business activity carried out by assessees, for the purpose of grant of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Since section 10B is identically worded using the term “derived from exports”,the interpretation given to the said term will…

ACIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Holdings Ltd., Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

…arly on account of scheme of the government granting the subsidy. R&D subsidy also,we hold ,is not entitled to exemption u/s 10B of the Act. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the apex court in Liberty India vs Commissioner of Income Tax(2009) 317 ITR 218,wherein it was held that incentives received on account of schemes of government cannot be said to be derived from the business activity carried out by assessees, for the purpose of grant of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Since section 10B is identically worded using the term “derived from exports”,the interpretation given to the said term will…

Divya Creation, Noida vs. Pr.CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2715/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

…of claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 14. The Hon’ble High Court considered the decisions in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. versus CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) with reference to section 80HH, Liberty India versus CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) with reference to section 8IB, CIT versus Sterling Food (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) with reference to section 80HH. The Hon’ble High Court distinguished the above decisions in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Riviera Home Furnishing Vs. Addl. CIT (2016) 65 Taxmann.com 18 287 (Delhi), wherein the deduction for…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Acer India Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/236/2011HC Karnataka19 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 260Section 80I

…f Rs.25,83,813/- has to be included in the eligible profits for computing deduction u/s.80IB of the Act when the interest income was not derived from the eligible business, 4 contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in 262 ITR 278 & 317 ITR 218?” 3. It is submitted that the first and second substantial questions of law are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs. M/s. ACER INDIA PVT. LTD., in ITA No.394 of 2009, disposed off on 25.06.2018. Following the said judgment, the first and second substantial questions of law are…

Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sasken Communications Technologies Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 627/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A 550/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year:2011-12) M/S.Sasken Technologies Ltd. 139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Ring Road, Domlur, Bengaluru-560071. Pan:Aaecs 6424 R … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent & It(Tp)A No.627/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year:2011-12) (By Revenue) ****** Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha,Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Rendering Software Development Services. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Was Filed On 28/11/2011 Declaring Income Of Rs.25,33,10,603/- & This Was Revised On It(Tp)A No.550 & 627/Bang/2016 Page 2 Of 21 20/03/2013 At Total Income Of Rs.23,72,94,572/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Took Up The Case For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Noticing The Following International Transactions In Form 3Ced Along With Transfer Pricing Study Report:

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha,CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 92C

…ncome was not derived directly from the industrial undertaking and therefore, cannot form part of eligible profits for deduction u/s 10A. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218. 15.1 Being aggrieved, objections were filed before the Hon'ble DRP. Hon'ble DRP also confirmed addition. 15.2 Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us in the present grounds of appeal. 15.3 Learned AR of the assessee contended that royalty income was derived from eligible 10A units and there was direct nexus between business undertakin…

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Subex Ltd

The appeal is disposed off

ITA/185/2011HC Karnataka14 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 10ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.185 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III REVENUE, BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12(3), BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SUBEX LIMITED UNIT-1, ADARSH TECH PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037.…

M/S. K Kalpana Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…also to be noted that export incentives have been held to be as not the income derived from the eligible business and hence, on such income, deduction u/s 80-IB is not allowable a held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India –vs- CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). Therefore the AO has wrongly allowed the deduction u/s. 80-IB on the income from interest of Rs.3,48,13,006/, export incentive of Rs.1,16,89,000/- and other non-operational income of Rs.15,809/-. Because of allowing excess deduction u/s. 80-IB on account of non-eligible business income, the deduction u/s. 80-IB has been allowed in excess of…

DCIT -CC-3(4), Cebtral RG.-3, Mumbai vs. Ahcl Pel, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2845/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80Section 801BSection 80I

…t the rental receipts earned out the unsold flats of the housing project should be held eligible for deduction. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) for the proposition that the income with first degree nexus should be considered as eligible income for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act" 6. On the other hand Ld DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities as well as cited decisio…

ITO 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Inventurus Knowledge Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 715/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.715/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Ito 15(2)(1) M/S. Inventurus R.No. 452, 4 T H Floor, Aayakar Knowledge Services Pvt. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai Ltd., 4T H Floor, The V. 400020 Corporate Centre, Lbs Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabck4601P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. S.C Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri.Choudhary Arunkumar
Section 10ASection 43(5)

…nce in our considered opinion this issue needs to be considered afresh by the Ld. CIT(A) by a proper speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) shall bear in mind relevant law and case laws including that from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and the constitutional bench (S.C) decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Dilip Kumar, order dated 20.07.2018 17. Needless to add assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 18. In the result this appeal by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No.715/Mum/2016 Order pronounced in the…

DCIT, Circle, Parwanoo vs. M/ Ind Sphinx Precision Ltd., Parwanoo

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1589/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs M/S Ind Sphinx Precision Ltd., Circle, Plot No. 28, Sector-5, Parwanoo. Parwanoo, Distt. Solan (Hp) Pan : Aabcs9437R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Chander Kanta, Sr.Dr Respondent By : Smt. Shruti Khandelwal Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2018

For Appellant: Smt. Chander Kanta, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shruti Khandelwal
Section 14ASection 80

…rcumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,81,994/- made by A.O. account of foreign currency fluctuation income, which was not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IC in view of the judgment in the case of M/s Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT(317 ITR 218) as the assessee had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that the same relates to business transaction on revenue account. 2. On facts and in the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in deleting the disallowance made by A.O. u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 5,84,013/- by ignoring the fact that assessee has not declared any taxable d…

DCIT Cir11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. State Street Syntel Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2179/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2179/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101 To 104, Delphi Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2115/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101, To 104, Delph, Vs. M.K. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Meera Patil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajendra Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 28

…ence was not eligible for deduction under the said sections.” iii) “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) wherein it is held that though certain income may constitute profit from business u/s.28, yet the same cannot be construed as profits derived from an industrial undertaking and hence would not be eligible for deduction u/s 10A/10AA of the Act.” iv) “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing interest…

DCIT Cir11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. State Street Syntel Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2115/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2179/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101 To 104, Delphi Vs. M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.2115/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income State Street Syntel Services Tax Circle-11(2)(2) Private Limited बनाम/ 421, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan B-101, To 104, Delph, Vs. M.K. Road,Mumbai – 400 020 Hiranandani Business Park Powai,Mumbai-400 076 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaics-0964-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Meera Patil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajendra Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 28

…ence was not eligible for deduction under the said sections.” iii) “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) wherein it is held that though certain income may constitute profit from business u/s.28, yet the same cannot be construed as profits derived from an industrial undertaking and hence would not be eligible for deduction u/s 10A/10AA of the Act.” iv) “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing interest…

Dy. C.I.T.1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 365/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit- 1(2), Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., Raipur (Cg). Plot No.482/2, Industrial Growth Vs. Centre, Phase- 1, Siltara, Raipur (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 80Section 80I

…a)(i) by Revenue is concerned, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order relying on the provisions of section 80-IA and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 and various other decisions, held that the loss of an eligible industrial unit is required to be set off against profit of other eligible industrial unit since the deduction u/s 80- IA(1) is allowed to the profit and gains derived from “business” referred to in section 80-IA and not to the undertaking. 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee su…

DCIT (OSD) Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly

ITA 2935/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 115J

…the appeal is allowed. 27. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the interest income cannot qualify for deduction u/s. 80IA. For this, he referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) vide order dated 31.08.2009 and CIT vs. Dilip Kumar vide order dated 30.07.2018. 28. Upon careful consideration, we find that since in the recent decision, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee following the judicial precedent, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). 29. In the result, the Re…

M/S. K.T.M India, Panipat vs. ACIT, Haryana

ITA 1981/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…/- @ 25% which included the export incentives in the shape of duty draw back at Rs. 3,52,05,597/-. Ld. AO had disallowed the same after rejecting the assessee’s contention and following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). Before the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee’s contention was that the ratio of Liberty India pertains to direct exporter whereas in assessee’s case is not that of direct exporter but supporting manufacturer and in similar matter, Hon’ble P & H High Court has allowed this issue in favour of the assessee. Apart from that ITAT New Delhi in the case of…

M/S. K.T.M India, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Panipat

ITA 5619/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…/- @ 25% which included the export incentives in the shape of duty draw back at Rs. 3,52,05,597/-. Ld. AO had disallowed the same after rejecting the assessee’s contention and following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). Before the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee’s contention was that the ratio of Liberty India pertains to direct exporter whereas in assessee’s case is not that of direct exporter but supporting manufacturer and in similar matter, Hon’ble P & H High Court has allowed this issue in favour of the assessee. Apart from that ITAT New Delhi in the case of…

ACIT, Panipat vs. M/S K.T.M India, Panipat

ITA 3165/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…/- @ 25% which included the export incentives in the shape of duty draw back at Rs. 3,52,05,597/-. Ld. AO had disallowed the same after rejecting the assessee’s contention and following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). Before the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee’s contention was that the ratio of Liberty India pertains to direct exporter whereas in assessee’s case is not that of direct exporter but supporting manufacturer and in similar matter, Hon’ble P & H High Court has allowed this issue in favour of the assessee. Apart from that ITAT New Delhi in the case of…

M/S K.T.M India, Panipat vs. Addl. CIT, Panipat

ITA 2529/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaita Nos. 5619, 2529/Del/2011 Asstt. Years 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…/- @ 25% which included the export incentives in the shape of duty draw back at Rs. 3,52,05,597/-. Ld. AO had disallowed the same after rejecting the assessee’s contention and following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). Before the Ld. CIT (A) the assessee’s contention was that the ratio of Liberty India pertains to direct exporter whereas in assessee’s case is not that of direct exporter but supporting manufacturer and in similar matter, Hon’ble P & H High Court has allowed this issue in favour of the assessee. Apart from that ITAT New Delhi in the case of…

Kirby Building Systems India (Uttaranchal) Pvt. Ltd., Haridwar vs. DCIT, Haridwar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 316/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sudhanshu Sharma, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 80Section 80I

…ons. The issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of CIT Vs. Priyanka Gems 367 ITR 575 and CIT Vs. Metrochem Industries Ltd. Both these decisions have considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) in holding that foreign exchange gain is income derived from industrial undertaking and is eligible for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act. Ground No 1 is dismissed. 10. The second ground of appeal of revenue is against holding that customer advances written back is also incom…