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 366,470 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

ITO, Ludhiana vs. M/S A.K. Exports, Ludhiana

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue as well as the appeal and cross-objection of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 375/CHANDI/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.799/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.965/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.375/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.800/Chandi/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Ito M/S A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.988/Chandi/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 6. Co No/25.Chandi/2010 (In Ita No.375/Chandi/2010) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S A.K. Exports Ito F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Ward 1(1) Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfa-1903-N

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal(CIT) a/w Shri Vivek
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 80I

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.799/CHANDI/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.965/CHANDI/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.375/CHANDI/2010 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.800/CHANDI/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITO M/s A.K. Exports बनाम/ Ward 1(1) F-1, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar Vs. Ludhiana Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAG…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 504/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…xport. It was further held that consideration received on sale of focus scrip / license cannot be considered as profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd 317 ITR 218 (SC). 10. We find that the following case , similar issue of subsidy raised for the first time before the Tribunal, was admitted and duly adjudicated by the Tribunal: * Shree Bala ji Alloys vs. ITO 127 TTJ 129 (Asr. ITAT)-Confirmed by Supreme Court in 287 CTR 459 (SC) * Indo Java & Co. vs. IAC 30 ITD 161 (Del ITAT)(SB) * Crystal Crop Protection P…

DCIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…xport. It was further held that consideration received on sale of focus scrip / license cannot be considered as profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd 317 ITR 218 (SC). 10. We find that the following case , similar issue of subsidy raised for the first time before the Tribunal, was admitted and duly adjudicated by the Tribunal: * Shree Bala ji Alloys vs. ITO 127 TTJ 129 (Asr. ITAT)-Confirmed by Supreme Court in 287 CTR 459 (SC) * Indo Java & Co. vs. IAC 30 ITD 161 (Del ITAT)(SB) * Crystal Crop Protection P…

Jindal Saw Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 4693/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Dcit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) New Delhi-110015. (Earlier Addl.Cit Range-4), Pan-Aabcs7280C C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002. Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Jindal Saw Ltd. Circle-13(2), (Formerly Known As M/S. Saw Pipes Room No.316A, Ltd.), 28, Najafgarh Road, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jindal Saw Ltd., Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Circle-13(2), New Delhi-110015. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Jindal Saw Ltd. Vs Acit, 28, Najafgarh Road, Circle-13(2) P.O.Ramesh Nagar, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110015. New Delhi-110002. Pan-Aabcs7280C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 43B

…xport. It was further held that consideration received on sale of focus scrip / license cannot be considered as profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd 317 ITR 218 (SC). 10. We find that the following case , similar issue of subsidy raised for the first time before the Tribunal, was admitted and duly adjudicated by the Tribunal: * Shree Bala ji Alloys vs. ITO 127 TTJ 129 (Asr. ITAT)-Confirmed by Supreme Court in 287 CTR 459 (SC) * Indo Java & Co. vs. IAC 30 ITD 161 (Del ITAT)(SB) * Crystal Crop Protection P…

Alpa India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee company is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 457/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Sri PVSS Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Sri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80Section 80I

…1 Alpla India Private Limited vs. DCIT ITA 457/Hyd/2022 आयकर अपीलीय "यायािधकरण म", हैदराबाद ‘ए’ ब"च, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मधुसूदन साविडया, माननीय लेखा सद"य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 457/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Alpla India Private Limited, VS. Deputy Commissioner of Income Hyderabad. Tax, PAN: AAFCA3145M Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) करदाता का "ितिनिध"/ Assessee : Sri PVSS Pr…

M/S. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3723/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 801A

…wholly and exclusively, or even partly, for purposes of the interest receipt. 1.7 The distinction between the profit 'attributable to a business and that 'derived from it was explained clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218). While the former takes within its ambit income that is incidental to the conduct of the business, the latter covers only that part of the profit which arises directly from the conduct of the business and has first degree of nexus with it. As regards the interest income in question, there is no dispute about the fact that it is part of the forme…

M/S. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3064/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 801A

…wholly and exclusively, or even partly, for purposes of the interest receipt. 1.7 The distinction between the profit 'attributable to a business and that 'derived from it was explained clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218). While the former takes within its ambit income that is incidental to the conduct of the business, the latter covers only that part of the profit which arises directly from the conduct of the business and has first degree of nexus with it. As regards the interest income in question, there is no dispute about the fact that it is part of the forme…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S Jai Prakash Power Venture Ltd., H.P

ITA 3929/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 801A

…wholly and exclusively, or even partly, for purposes of the interest receipt. 1.7 The distinction between the profit 'attributable to a business and that 'derived from it was explained clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218). While the former takes within its ambit income that is incidental to the conduct of the business, the latter covers only that part of the profit which arises directly from the conduct of the business and has first degree of nexus with it. As regards the interest income in question, there is no dispute about the fact that it is part of the forme…

M/S. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., H.P vs. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 3925/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, M/S, Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., Circle-2, 113, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S, Dcit, Jaiprakash Power Circle-2, Ventures Ltd., Dehradun Juit, Complex, Waknaghat, Post Office- Dumehar Bani, Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh Pan: Aaacj5463 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anil K. Chopra, Ca Sh. Sanjiv Choudhary, Ca Sh. V.K. Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 801A

…wholly and exclusively, or even partly, for purposes of the interest receipt. 1.7 The distinction between the profit 'attributable to a business and that 'derived from it was explained clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218). While the former takes within its ambit income that is incidental to the conduct of the business, the latter covers only that part of the profit which arises directly from the conduct of the business and has first degree of nexus with it. As regards the interest income in question, there is no dispute about the fact that it is part of the forme…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 454/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…erm 'derived from' has been interpreted in a narrow sense as compared to 'attributable to as used elsewhere with reference to other deductions." The Ld. A.O. has also relied on the judicial precedence in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-tax-317 ITR 218 (SC)/[2009] 225 CTR 233 (SC), Hon'ble SC held that: The income from interest on FDRs kept as retention money by the assessee in respect of the project of the said unit cannot, therefore, be considered to be the income 'derived from the industrial undertaking' so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4). The claim that income from funds borrowe…

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…erm 'derived from' has been interpreted in a narrow sense as compared to 'attributable to as used elsewhere with reference to other deductions." The Ld. A.O. has also relied on the judicial precedence in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-tax-317 ITR 218 (SC)/[2009] 225 CTR 233 (SC), Hon'ble SC held that: The income from interest on FDRs kept as retention money by the assessee in respect of the project of the said unit cannot, therefore, be considered to be the income 'derived from the industrial undertaking' so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4). The claim that income from funds borrowe…

M/S. Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT-I, Lucknow

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…erm 'derived from' has been interpreted in a narrow sense as compared to 'attributable to as used elsewhere with reference to other deductions." The Ld. A.O. has also relied on the judicial precedence in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income-tax-317 ITR 218 (SC)/[2009] 225 CTR 233 (SC), Hon'ble SC held that: The income from interest on FDRs kept as retention money by the assessee in respect of the project of the said unit cannot, therefore, be considered to be the income 'derived from the industrial undertaking' so as to be eligible for deduction u/s 801A(4). The claim that income from funds borrow…

Shri Nitin Aima, Shrinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

ITA 83/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 75Section 80

…fit u/s 10AA as they do not form part of profits and gains derived from export, of such articles or things or from services, and for arriving at the above conclusion the AO relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT ( 317 ITR 218), where the Hon'ble court while analysing the provisions of section 80 IB of the Act 61, the relevant portion has held as follows: "The next question is - what is duty drawback? Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 empower Government of India to provide for repayment of customs and excise duty paid by…

M/S Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6406/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito, Ward 8(3)(1) M/S Tayani Holdings 616, Ayakar Bhavan, 285, Park View Bhiwanji Mk Road, Mumbai Arjan Khimji Marg, 400020. Matunga, Central Railway Mumbai 400019. Pan/Gir No. Aadct3311K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…explanation needs to be appreciated. Kindly appreciate the merits we rely upon: 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Dy. CIT Vs. Rohini Builders 4 M/s. Tayani Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai CIT vs Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 218 (BOM) Parties being unknown parties and having all assessed to tax and having directly replied to the Assessing Officer, source of the source are explained by the Appellant. If further doubt raised on the funding parties, the Assessing Officer can or should proceed against those parties to whom doubts are raised about their credentials. As hel…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd, Kolkatta

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 480/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 801A

…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, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2430/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 801A

…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…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Essel Mining & Industries Ltd, Kolkatta

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 373/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 801A

…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. DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2092/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 801A

…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…

Euro Jewels, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 236/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.236/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Euro Jewles, Vs. The Dcit, Plot No.258-A, Surat Special Economic Circle – 1(1)(1), Zone, Gidc Sachin, Surat - 394230 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkipp5896G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2025

Section 10ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69C

…d, further assessee also failed to prove genuineness of such purchases, the impugned disallowance was justified. The Id. Sr. DR also relied on the decisions of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs DCIT, 29 taxmann.com 262 (Gujarat) and Liberty India vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have deliberated on the case laws relied upon by both sides. We find that both AO and CIT(A) have passed ex parte orders by observing that assessee was non-compliant and did not furnish requisite details requisitioned in various statutory and show cause not…

The Kota Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 912/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep Garg, Adv. (Th.V.C), Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Singh, Add. CIT (Th. V.C.)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…ble Jurisdictional High Court mentioned (supra). While deciding the issue the Hon'ble High Court relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s. Associated Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 195 and M/s. Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). We have gone through the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and observed that the disallowance is tenable in the present case, as the assessee is failed to produce any decision in its favour against the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 5. Once a position of law…