How many judgments cite Liberty India v. CIT?

571 judgments on BharatTax cite Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Liberty India v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 10B, Section 80IB, Section 147, Section 80IA.

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 14A Section 10B Section 80IB Section 147 Section 80IA Section 1961 Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 75 section 80h section 80hh section 80hhc section 80ic section 80ib eligible business deduction under section 80ia section 80i section 80ia disallowance u/s 14a gross total income

Judgments citing Liberty India v. CIT

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 311/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

…rest, penal interest income and other miscellaneous incomes as the same is not an income derived from eligible business of the assessee u/s 80IA. The AO placed reliance on various decisions including the Hon’ble decision in case Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT 317 ITR 218. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of interest income including penal interest but disallowed the claim are other incomes. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the interest income and penal interest has been derived from the eligible industrial undertaking is therefore, eligible in deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. As…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Punit Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6980/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Joginder Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am M/S Punit Construction Co. Jcit-25(3), 5Th C-11, 3Rd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Plot No. 13/A, Fun Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Republic Road, Off New Link Bkc, Bandra(E), Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400053 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaafp1231E Acit-25(3), M/S Punit Construction Co. Room No.308, 3Rd Floor, Agarwal Residency, Bldg. No.C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Shankar Lane, Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400067

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram/Aditya AjgaonkarFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND G. MANJUNATHA, AM M/s Punit Construction Co. JCIT-25(3), 5th C-11, 3rd Floor, Floor, Agarwal Golden Chamber, Plot No. 13/A, Fun Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Republic Road, Off New Link BKC, Bandra(E), Road, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400053 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAAFP1231E ACIT-25(3), M/s Punit Construction Co. Room No.308, 3rd Floor, Agarwal Residency, Bldg. No.C-11, Pratyaksh Kar Shankar Lane, Vs. Bhavan, BKC, Bandra(E), Kandivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400067 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AAAFP1231E Asse…

Punit Construction Co., Mumbai vs. CIT 25, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6337/MUM/2014[211-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram/Aditya AjgaonkarFor Respondent: HN Singh, CIT DR

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

DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hindusthan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1410/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1601 /Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata -Vs- Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 7214 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinod Sharma, Ca For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

…t is not derived from export of articles or things as per section 10B of the Act. The income in the form of duty drawback is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by 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 duty drawback receipts and DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits eligible industrial undertakings for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA / 80IB of the Act as they are not derived from the industrial undertaking. In respect of excess liabilities written back, he argued that it is not known whether the liabi…

Hindustan Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1410/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

ITA 334/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…e AO contained the details of interest income and other income which in the opinion of the AO are not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in view of the various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218. It is pertinent to note that in the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment the Assessing Officer has not stated that any new material or information came to his knowledge after completion of assessment u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2009 or after completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.w. 147 on 01.03.2013. The AO has taken all details from…

Al-Azi Polymers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT WD 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Al-Azi Polymers, The Asst. Commissioner 1 Net Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Andheri Kurla Road, Vs. Ward 21(3), Andheri East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 072 Pan: Aagfa4589A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 2(20)(e)Section 2(22)(e)

…rtaking to be eligible for deduction u/s.80IB there should be a direct and first level nexus between the income earned and the activity of the undertaking. In view of the decision laid down by the 5 M/s. AL-AZI Polymers Apex Court in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC) the intersection FDRs and margin money earned by the assessee cannot be taken as derived by the undertaking and hence the same is not eligible for deduction u/s.80IB. In case of Shah Originals 232 CTR ITR 228(Bom) in the context of section 80HHC also, it has been held that the term 'derived' is of narrower connotation than the term attributa…

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6225/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Premier Nutraceutical Pvt. Dcit-13(1)(2), Room No.218, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., 702, A-Wing, Bonanza, Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar Plaza, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaccp9121E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Smt N. Hemalatha, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt N. Hemalatha, D.R

Section 10ASection 80

…which the interest income of Rs.2,27,290/- was earned. I find that similar 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 'd…

DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S P C Chandra (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…er imposing penalty was passed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order imposing penalty. The Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalty. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of LIBERTY INDIA v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218(which held against the assessee) was rendered on August 31, 2009 but was published for the first time only on September 17, 2009. It had been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that there was very little gap between the publication of the decision of the Supreme Court in LIBERTY INDIA'S case and the filing of the return by the assessee. At th…

Value Labs LLP, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, grounds pertaining to ‘other income’ are considered allowed and grounds pertaining to interest income are considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 56

…ay); iv. Judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Eltek SGS (P) Ltd., [300 ITR 6] (Delhi); 4. Ld.CIT(A), however, did not accept the contentions and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT [183 Taxman 349] [317 ITR 218] (SC) and also other decisions as stated in para 6.4 of the order upheld the order of AO. Hence the present appeal. I.T.A. No. 392/Hyd/2016 :- 3 -: 5. Assessee in the course of present appeal, raised additional grounds that AO has erred in not excluding the above incomes from total turnover while excluding from export turnover. It is noticed t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Futura Bioplants Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 1271/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Vora & Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 10(1)Section 2

…of mother plants and sale of grown plants (which inextricably linked to foreign exchange), it cannot be disassociated from the agricultural activities carried out by the Assessee. This proposition has been accepted in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Assessee relies on the following judicial precedents in this regard which are in the context of section 80HHC of the Act : • CIT Vs. Rachna Udhyog [2010] 230 CTR 72 (Bombay) (enclosed herewith at Page 305 to Page 306 of the Paper Book) • ACIT Vs. Prakash L. Shah [2008] 118 TT J 577 (Mumbai) (SB) (enclosed…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, New Delhi

ITA 5333/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5333/Del /2014 Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Bharat Aluminium Circle 2(1), New Delhi. Company Limited, Core-6, vs Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110016 (PAN: AAACB1290N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 09.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 27.12.2017 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order…

M/S. Emas Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 267/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 267/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Emas Expressway Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………….Appellant 53A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata – 700016 [Pan : Aaace9530E] D.C.I.T, Cir 8(1)..……………………………………………………………………….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Kolkata Dated 03.12.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Disallowance Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Deduction Under Section 80Ia In Respect Of The Interest Written Back Amounting To Rs. 4,94,57,248/-, Insurance Claim Receipts Amounting To Rs. 15,46,936/- & Other Income Amounting To Rs. 4,808/-. 2. The Assessee In The Present Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Construction Of Highways. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Originally Filed By It On 29.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 8,62,32,582/-. In The Said Return, The Interest Liability Written Back Amounting To Rs.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…see derived from the business of highway development. In support of this conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on 3 I.T.A. No. 267/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Emas Highway Pvt Ltd the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and Pandian Chemical Ltd. vs CIT 262 ITR 278. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. As agreed by the learned representatives of both the sides, the issue involved in this appeal of the…

Harita Seating Systems Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1665/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mrs. Supriyo Pal, JCIT

Section 35Section 80ISection 80l

…dustrial undertaking, cannot be deducted in respect of the said undertaking while computing the profits and gains of the undertaking and relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Liberty India vs Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 317 ITR 218 , Gujarat High Court in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax [2017] 393 ITR 625 and the Madras High Court decision in the case of CIT vs L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools Ltd., 145 ITR 195.Per Contra, the DR relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT (A) and submitted that all the assessee’s units are under one PAN…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Mr. Sunil Prakash, Faridabad

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6153/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2012-13

Section 143Section 80Section 80I

…has observed as under: Page 6 of 9 ITA 6153/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2012-13 Sh. Sunil Prakash, Faridabad “17.As related to issue relating to Excise Duty refund, the CIT(A) has rightly relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 wherein it is held that the payment of Central Excise Duty had a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and similarly of the refund of Central Excise Duty also had a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity. The issue of payment of Central Excise Duty would not arise in the absence of any industrial activity. There is inextricable link…

DCIT Cir 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA 5739/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 5739/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 5739/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. P.R. TopraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…as the A.O has observed that by considering export incentive to the tune of Rs. 2,36,32,653/- to be eligible for computing profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC is contrary to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218(SC) which led to an escapement of income leading to reopening of the concluded assessment u/s 147 of the 1961 Act. The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment by the AO u/s. 147 and submitted that it is merely a change of opinion by the AO as the AO has duly applied his mind while granting deduction u/s 80IC in the original assessment…

Pioneer Food & Agro Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4690/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.4690/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Pioneer Food & Agro Industries v. The Income Tax officer 552, Krishna Kunj, 3B, 1st Floor, Ward 21(2)(5), Room No.107, 8th Road, Pali Hill, Khar (W), 1st Floor, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400 052 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 PAN NO: AAJFP 0506 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal Revenue by : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen Date of Hearing : 03.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 23.11.2017 O R D E R…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Tantia Construction Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1405/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tantia Construction Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 0811 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.T iwari, CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

…fall within the ambit of the expression “derived from infrastructure facility” as defined in Section 80IA of the IT Act, 1961, in particular the Explanation appended to sub- section (4) thereof w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and as held in the case of Liberty India (S.C.) 317 ITR 218. 2.4. We have heard the rival submissions and we find that the similar issue had cropped up before this tribunal in assessee’s own case for the Asst Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 1758/Kol/2014 dated 6.9.2017. In the said order, this tribunal had held as under:- “3.5. We have heard the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that the assessee is entitle…

M/S. Kamakhaya Oil Company, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Kamakhaya Oil Company, Vs. Cit, Delhi-X, New Delhi C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. Pan : Aahfk3040R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vijay Verma, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…wed is not arising out of the manufacturing activity. The immediate and effective source of interest is the 5 sale proceeds which remained unpaid for a stipulated credit period and not the industrial undertaking. " (v) In the case of Liberty India Vs CIT (SC) 317 ITR 218 it has been held that the "By using the expression 'derived from', Parliament intended to cover sources not beyond the first degree. - DEPB/Duty drawback are incentives which flow from the schemes framed by Central Govt, or Customs Act and hence they belongs to the category of ancillary profits of such undertaking and are not derived from the ind…

Saraf Export, Churu vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 32/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80I

…an order u/s 154 for the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed on 08-02-2010 whereby the deduction claimed by the assessee was withdrawn in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Liberty India vs. CIT 317 ITR 218. 3.1 The order passed u/s 154 of the Act was challenged and reached to the stage of this Tribunal. The issue was decided against the Revenue. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reopen the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 which was duly served upon the assessee. It is recorded by the AO that reasons for reopening were duly sup…