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 367,164 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

Quadron Business Park Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 36, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4857/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4857/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Quadron Business Part Ltd. Dy. Cit, C.C.36, Plot No.28, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Hinjewadi, Phase-Ii, Pune, "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeca 9058 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Sharma/ Shri Dhruv Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Patankar

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Sharma/For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 80Section 80I

…were not deductible u/s. 80-IAB. For coming to this conclusion, the A.O. referred to the following judicial precedents wherein the expression "derived been interpreted, explained and distinguished from the expression attributable to: • Liberty India v. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) • Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT 262 ITR 278 (SC) • Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 113 ITR 84 (SC) • CIT v. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 (SC) • Dy. CIT v. Parekh PIast India (P) Ltd. 137 ITD 208 (Mum) • JJC. Trust v. CIT 23 ITR 143 (Bom) 11. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the amount receipt in this account is n…

Anamika Conductors Ltd., Jaipur vs. Add. CIT, Jaipur

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. R. A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 40Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 266/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd., The ACIT, Vs. B-129 Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar, Range-6, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA5681P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. R. A. Verma (Addl.…

Plastiblends India Limited Through Its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax Range 8(2) Mumbai

C.A. No.-000238-000238 - 2012Supreme Court09 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Section 143(1)(a)Section 32Section 80

…luded that Section 80-IA provides for a special deduction linked with profits and is a code by itself and in so doing relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax5, 4 (2000) 245 ITR 677 5 (2009) 317 ITR 218 8 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Williamson Financial Services & Ors.6 and Commissioner of Income Tax, Dibrugarh v. Doom Dooma India Ltd.7. The High Court proceeded on the basis that this Court in the aforementioned decisions has held that for computing such special deduction, any device adopted by an assessee to reduce or inflate the profits…

Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1031/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1031/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sanjana Cryogenic Storages Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 116, Bajaj Bhavan Income Tax 11Th Floor, Nariman Point बनाम/ Circle 3(3)(1) Mumbai – 400 021 Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 6Th Floor, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-5093-D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Lal Chand Choudhary,Ld.ARFor Respondent: V.Justein,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…e only issue remaining to be decided is whether the deduction u/s 80-IA would be available to the assessee against forex gain. We find that this issue stood squarely against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Liberty India Vs. CIT [317 ITR 218] where the Hon’ble court has held that the words "derived from" is narrower in connotation as compared to the words "attributable to". In other words, by using the expression "derived from", Parliament intended to cover sources not beyond the first degree. Clearly the forex gains in the instant case are not derived from the activity of generation…

Sagar Agencies Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad

ITA 493/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 493 & 604/Ahd/2012 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd., 803, Sahjanad Complex, Shahibaug Road, Ahmedabad - 380004 Appellant Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad Respondent / Cross Appellant PAN: AADCS0473P आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee : Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.201…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xlnc Fashions, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3520/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 3520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Xlnc Fashions, Ward-22(2), A-14, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafx0026B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxiii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. K. N. Chary, JM ITA No. 3520/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/s XLNC Fashions, Ward-22(2), A-14, New Friends Colony, New Delhi New Delhi-110065 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFX0026B Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Sampoornanand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 14.03.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi. 2. During the course of hearing nobody was present o…

Jet Airways (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistry-ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johari and Ms.Arju Goradia-DR
Section 115JSection 254(1)

…s carried on by the assessee had to be considered for deciding various receipts. He further stated that while deciding the appeals for the A.Y. 1997 to 2002 the Tribunal had not considered the judgments of Pandian Chemicals Ltd.(262 ITR 278)and Liberty India (317 ITR 218) that the principal business carried out by the assessee and the Companies Act and the Act should decide the receipt under various heads. 7.2.1.The AR contended that the typographical mistake about the quantum of interest could not affect the issue, that the dispute before the Tribunal was to decide the head under which interest income was to be…

ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Khushboo Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3647/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 148Section 68

…is whether the identity of the assessee is proved or not. In the case of share capital, if the identity is proved, no addition can be made u/s.68 of the Act. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'hle Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd. 317 ITR 218. We, therefore do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the Ld CIT(A). Ground No.I is accordingly dismissed." (iv) In the case of Green Infra Ltd vs. ITO reported in 38 taxmann.com 253-ITAT) dated 23/812013, Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT decided that "During previous year ending on 31-3-2009, it had collected share premium on allotment of sha…

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No

ITA 2205/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cirle-12(2), Vs. M/S Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 10/1B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7951 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue/Department By :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.237/Xii/Cir-12/14-15 Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.03.2014. 2. Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,42,76,824/- Made By The A.O. On Depreciation On Hoarding Structures.” 2. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,66,53,847/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Deduction U/S. 80-Ia.”

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80

…e AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee in respect of deduction under section 80IA M/s Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2011-12 of the Act by applying the principles of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (Sc). Regarding the applicability of the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT (supra). The CIT(A) noted that the facts of present case is distinguishable from the facts of Liberty India case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has dealt with the issue of whether the DEPB credit/Duty drawback receipt ca…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Mrs. Ambika Sadh, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6252/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita Nos. 6252 & 6253/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward -29(4), Vs. Ambika Sadh Room No. 1013, 10Th Floor, Prop. M/S. Euro Expo. E-2 Block, Dr. S.P. Sukherjee C-57, M.B. Road, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, Lal Kuan Badarpur, Minto Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aoqps4050C)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 80I

…ITA No. 6252 & 6253/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “G” BENCH NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER In ITA Nos. 6252 & 6253/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITO, Ward -29(4), Vs. Ambika Sadh Room No. 1013, 10th Floor, Prop. M/s. Euro Expo. E-2 Block, Dr. S.P. Sukherjee C-57, M.B. Road, Civic Centre, JLN Marg, Lal Kuan Badarpur, Minto Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (PAN: AOQPS4050C) Revenue by: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR Assessee by: None Date of hearing 22/08/2017 Date of prono…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vineet Sood & Sons (HUF), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6205/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shuklain Ita No. 6205/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit Vs. Vineet Sood & Sons (Huf), Circle 28(1), G-53, Sarita Vihar, New New Delhi Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Aaahv3031Q)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Verma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…of the turnover of Rs.17,68,01,304/-, which has been added by the Page 2 of 12 Assessing Officer. While coming to this conclusion the Assessing Officer has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218. 3. In the first appeal, the Learned CIT (Appeals) first of all called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer to quantify the duty drawback for various assessment years after making enquiry from Dy. Commissioner (Customs) Noida SEZ. In response, the Assessing Officer gave his remand report dated 1.07.2015 stating that duty drawback rece…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2200/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT
Section 80I

…was liable to be treated as part of the business profits for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 6.1 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 218, the disallowance was liable to be confirmed. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.1983/Mds/2011 for the AY 2008-09 & No.2029, 855 & 2077/Mds/2013 for the AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 vide order dated 28.04.20…

M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2199/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT
Section 80I

…was liable to be treated as part of the business profits for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 6.1 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 218, the disallowance was liable to be confirmed. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.1983/Mds/2011 for the AY 2008-09 & No.2029, 855 & 2077/Mds/2013 for the AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 vide order dated 28.04.20…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2163/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT
Section 80I

…was liable to be treated as part of the business profits for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 6.1 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 218, the disallowance was liable to be confirmed. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.1983/Mds/2011 for the AY 2008-09 & No.2029, 855 & 2077/Mds/2013 for the AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 vide order dated 28.04.20…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2162/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT
Section 80I

…was liable to be treated as part of the business profits for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 6.1 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 218, the disallowance was liable to be confirmed. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.1983/Mds/2011 for the AY 2008-09 & No.2029, 855 & 2077/Mds/2013 for the AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 vide order dated 28.04.20…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Neyveli

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 2161/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan RamabadranFor Respondent: Mrs.Ruby George, CIT
Section 80I

…was liable to be treated as part of the business profits for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 6.1 In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 317 ITR 218, the disallowance was liable to be confirmed. It was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.1983/Mds/2011 for the AY 2008-09 & No.2029, 855 & 2077/Mds/2013 for the AYs 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11 vide order dated 28.04.20…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. Sh Sunil Parkash, Faridabad

ITA 5683/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 194Section 40Section 80I

…the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has 3. erred on facts and in law in allowing deductions u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the excise duty refund received by the appellant ignoring the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (317 ITR 218). In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that profits derived by way of such incentives did not fall within the expression 'profits derived from industrial undertaking'." 4. "That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal." C.O .No. 11/DEL/2013 (A.Y .2009-1…

ACIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Sunil Parkash, Faridabad

ITA 2955/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 194Section 40Section 80I

…the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has 3. erred on facts and in law in allowing deductions u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the excise duty refund received by the appellant ignoring the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (317 ITR 218). In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that profits derived by way of such incentives did not fall within the expression 'profits derived from industrial undertaking'." 4. "That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal." C.O .No. 11/DEL/2013 (A.Y .2009-1…

M/S. Liberty Shoes Ltd., Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2273/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Liberty Shoes Ltd., Acit, Karnal Circle, G.T. Road, Gharaunda, Vs Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Aaacl3146K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40ASection 80Section 80I

…, after noticing the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dharam Pal Prem Chand (supra) observed that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and CIT vs Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) and held in unequivocal terms that the amount received by the assessee towards the refund of excise duty cannot form part of the profits and gains derived from the undertaking. 8. In so far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The question is whether a refund of excise duty to the tune…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 855/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

…annot be said that the interest Income derived from advances given to employees is also eligible for deduction uls 80-IA. The assessee itself had classified this receipt as part of ‘Other Income’. The hon’ble Supreme court, in the case of Liberty India v. CIT-317 ITR 218, held that profits from sale of duty drawback are not eligible for deduction u/s.80-IA. The Apex Court held that the expression ‘derived from industrial undertaking’ used in sec.80-lA is narrower in connotation and intends to cover source not beyond the first degree. The relevant portion of the decision are given below: “Analysing Chapter Vl-A,…