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

DCIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 471/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…n of cargo in the sum of Rs 55.72 lakhs. According to ld DR, these receipts does not have first degree nexus with the CFS activity of the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that the source of DEPB and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. A.Yrs.2010-11 & 2011-12 duty drawback was the Government and not the business of the assessee. He further argued that there is a huge difference between the expression profits and gains ‘derived from’ any business and profits ‘attributable to’ any business and that sinc…

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 421/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…n of cargo in the sum of Rs 55.72 lakhs. According to ld DR, these receipts does not have first degree nexus with the CFS activity of the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that the source of DEPB and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. A.Yrs.2010-11 & 2011-12 duty drawback was the Government and not the business of the assessee. He further argued that there is a huge difference between the expression profits and gains ‘derived from’ any business and profits ‘attributable to’ any business and that sinc…

DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 496/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…n of cargo in the sum of Rs 55.72 lakhs. According to ld DR, these receipts does not have first degree nexus with the CFS activity of the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that the source of DEPB and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. A.Yrs.2010-11 & 2011-12 duty drawback was the Government and not the business of the assessee. He further argued that there is a huge difference between the expression profits and gains ‘derived from’ any business and profits ‘attributable to’ any business and that sinc…

M/S Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

496/Kol/2014

ITA 483/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 483/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 496/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 421/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E ] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 471/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcb 0984 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…n of cargo in the sum of Rs 55.72 lakhs. According to ld DR, these receipts does not have first degree nexus with the CFS activity of the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that the source of DEPB and Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. A.Yrs.2010-11 & 2011-12 duty drawback was the Government and not the business of the assessee. He further argued that there is a huge difference between the expression profits and gains ‘derived from’ any business and profits ‘attributable to’ any business and that sinc…

Indica Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3584/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Hari Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 10BSection 80I

…of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the A.O. in excluding duty drawback of Rs.57,771/- from eligible income under section 80IC in respect of Kotdwar Unit-III. The A.O. following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 excluded the above amount from computation of deduction under section 80IC of the I.T. Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra), did not press Ground No.1 of the appeal of the assessee. Ground No.1 is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 4. On Ground No…

DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1294/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…rts while interpreting the computation of profits derived from eligible business have held that the word “derived” from is narrower in connotation as compared to the word “attributable to”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) held that the expression “derived from” intends to cover sources not beyond the first degree. Meaning thereby the expression “derived from” signifies that only income/expenditure directly and inextricably related to eligible undertaking should be considered in computing profits of the eligible undertakings. Indirect expenditure which has no…

Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1004/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…rts while interpreting the computation of profits derived from eligible business have held that the word “derived” from is narrower in connotation as compared to the word “attributable to”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) held that the expression “derived from” intends to cover sources not beyond the first degree. Meaning thereby the expression “derived from” signifies that only income/expenditure directly and inextricably related to eligible undertaking should be considered in computing profits of the eligible undertakings. Indirect expenditure which has no…

D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata vs. M/S Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2064/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…rts while interpreting the computation of profits derived from eligible business have held that the word “derived” from is narrower in connotation as compared to the word “attributable to”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) held that the expression “derived from” intends to cover sources not beyond the first degree. Meaning thereby the expression “derived from” signifies that only income/expenditure directly and inextricably related to eligible undertaking should be considered in computing profits of the eligible undertakings. Indirect expenditure which has no…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1069/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(34)Section 14A

…rts while interpreting the computation of profits derived from eligible business have held that the word “derived” from is narrower in connotation as compared to the word “attributable to”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) held that the expression “derived from” intends to cover sources not beyond the first degree. Meaning thereby the expression “derived from” signifies that only income/expenditure directly and inextricably related to eligible undertaking should be considered in computing profits of the eligible undertakings. Indirect expenditure which has no…

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 5384/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Hikal Ltd., Dy. Cit 14(2)(2), 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. Pan Aaach0383A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman & Shri Omi Ningshen
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…/Mum/2007, has upheld assessee’s entitlement of the benefits of section 10B of the Act. It has also been pointed out that in the instant year, the CIT(A) has denied claim by relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India [2009] (317 ITR 218), which is distinguishable. It was pointed out that in the following decisions the claim of deduction u/s. 10B/10A of the Act has been allowed after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (supra): • CIT vs. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd. (2017)87 taxmann.com 182(Kar) (FB) • CIT vs. Arts & Crafts Exports…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ge Medical Systems India Pvt.Ltd

ITA/78/2016HC Karnataka25 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 260

…1/16 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2018 PRESENT THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA I.T.A.No.78/2016 BETWEEN: 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME –TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(3), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY Mr.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S. GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD., 122. PART-1, EPIP, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 006. PAN:AAACG 7655G. …RESPONDENT…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jammu vs. M/S Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 is allowed, while that of the Revenue for AY 2005-06, dismissed

ITA 571/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 544/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 154Section 80Section 80I

…ming deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act on the profits and, thus, the refund amount credited to its profit and loss account. The same was denied by the Revenue (for AY 2005- 06), and confirmed by the Tribunal following the decision in Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC). The matter traveled to the Hon'ble High Court which, accepting the assessee’s alternate plea, held it to be a capital receipt, per its decision reported at Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K). The assessee, accordingly, raised an additional ground toward the same in its appeal for AY 2006-07 pending before the ld. CIT…

Kashmir Steel Rolling Milss., Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax .Central Circle, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2006-07 is allowed, while that of the Revenue for AY 2005-06, dismissed

ITA 544/ASR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 544/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 154Section 80Section 80I

…ming deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act on the profits and, thus, the refund amount credited to its profit and loss account. The same was denied by the Revenue (for AY 2005- 06), and confirmed by the Tribunal following the decision in Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC). The matter traveled to the Hon'ble High Court which, accepting the assessee’s alternate plea, held it to be a capital receipt, per its decision reported at Shree Balaji Alloys & Ors. v. CIT [2011] 333 ITR 335 (J&K). The assessee, accordingly, raised an additional ground toward the same in its appeal for AY 2006-07 pending before the ld. CIT…

Sulphur Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 22/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. M.K. Patel, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 10BSection 115PSection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Sulphur Mills Ltd., Addl. CIT Range (3), 2nd Floor, 604/605, 349-Business Point, Aayakar Bhavan, 6th Floor, Western Vs. M.K. Road, Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069 PAN: AABCS8736K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Smt. M.K. Patel, A.R. & Shri K.S. Chokshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri V. Justin, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A…

DCIT, Cir.7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gala Precision Technology Pvt. Ltd., Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2675/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, V. M/S. Gala Precision Technology Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 7(1)(1), Room No. 23, 102-A, Orion Business Park, Near Cine Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Wonder, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (W) M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan No: Aaacg 1777 F

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 80H

…dertaking. The derivation of profits on the deposit made with Electricity Board cannot be said to flow directly from the industrial undertaking itself." The apex Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 233: (2009) 28 DTR (SC) 73: (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC), while interpreting s. 80-IB of the Act, which also allowed deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from eligible business has held as under: "14. ............ The words 'derived from' are narrower in connotation as compared to the words 'attributable to'. In other words, by using the expression 'derived from', Parliament intended…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…: 158) We have heard the rival contentions. Our findings on the various issues raised by the assessing officer are given in seriatim hereunder: 1. Interest on loan given at subsidized rates to employees The Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT: 317 ITR 218, has held that source of income beyond the first degree nexus with the manufacturing operation cannot be considered as derived from such business/activity. Following the aforesaid decision, the Courts / Tribunal in certain cases have held that interest income earned from fixed deposits made by the eligible unit is not eligible for deduction under…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Life Long Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2004/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Life Long Ltd, Circle-15(2), D-1, Soami Nagar (South), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacl9493R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…eld that the deduction u/s 80IC is allowable on that income. 8. The ld DR supported the orders fo the ld AO and submitted that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Liberty India Ltd Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218. 9. We have carefully considered the contention of the ld AR as well as the reasons given by the lower authorities for their own. In the present case the first income is foreign exchange fluctuation gain of Rs. 2248809/-. This income has arisen because of restatement of debtors and creditors at end of the year for the purpose of accounting gain o…

Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 930/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.930/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Express Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Express Estates, No. 2, Club House Vs. Income Tax, Road, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Company Circle Ii(1), [Pan: Aabce5521G] Chennai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.12.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Interest Receipt Of ₹.62,77,671/- Is Income & Is To Be Assessed As Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…de clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals, 262 ITR 278, Madras High Court decision in the case of South India Shipping Corporation Ltd., 240 ITR 24 and the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579, Liberty India, 317 ITR 218. 7.3.8 Though these judgements have been rendered in a different context, however the principle laid down is same. While defining the term ‘derived from’, the Hon’ble Courts have held that only that income which is: directly earned from the business source will be treated as business income. Any income which is incidental in nature including the…

DCIT Cir 11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Syntel P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2114/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Jenardhanan, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Meena, AR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 1OSection 28

…t derived from export of computer software and hence was not eligible for deduction under the said sections?" iii) 0n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not 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 Cir 11(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Syntel International P.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2113/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Jenardhanan, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Meena, AR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 1OSection 28

…t derived from export of computer software and hence was not eligible for deduction under the said sections." iii) 0n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not 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 i…