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 367,154 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

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Cuddalore vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2140/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

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,…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. 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 2077/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

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,…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. 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 2029/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

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,…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. 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 1983/CHNY/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

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,…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 3643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Smt Vidisha Kalra
Section 143(3)Section 801A(4)Section 80I

…ditional CIT 37 SOT 322 (Mum), wherein it was held that indirect expenses not directly relatable to the unit cannot but be ignored while computing income "derived from", Further reliance was placed on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Liberty India v. (IT 317 ITR 218 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court explained that "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 to cover sources not beyond the first degree. 27. In view of the above, Id. AR contended that no reallocation of expenses is re…

Suraksha Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 55/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Suraksha Realtors Dcit Central Circle-36, 3 Narayan Bldg. 23 L.N. Rd. Mumbai Dadar East Mumbai 400014 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaufs1534P (Appellant) : ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri. M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 80I

…ay of fixed deposits was raised remaining under the bonafide belief that as the same had an inextricable nexus with the business of the assessee, therein submitted that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had interpreted the scope and gamut of the term ‘derived from’, and had thus once and for all put to rest the divergent and conflicting views as regards the same, the assessee therein yielding to the said interpretation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had thus itself conceded the said point in the course of its q…

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Addl. Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-IV, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 PAN/GIR No. AAACR5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Ltd.,3rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Gums & Chemical Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 752/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Sanjay Bhaumik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…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, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 462/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: S/Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. & Sanjay Bhaumik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

…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…

M/S. Aditya Durobuild Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 861/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2009-10 Aditya Durobuild Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A-14, Lgf, Central Circle-7, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca9706A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Jain, Ca Department By : Ms Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 22.8.2013 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80Ib In Respect Of Bank Interest Of Rs.20,75,862/- Which Was Treated By The Ao As ‘Income From Other Sources.’

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Bedobina Chaudhuri, Sr. DR
Section 80HSection 80I

…t, but, from the parking of surplus funds in the bank, 6 albeit such funds were received from customers. Ergo, relation between the interest income and housing project slips from direct to indirect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) has held that DEPB/duty drawback are incentives which flow from the Schemes framed by Central Government or from s. 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, hence, incentives profits are not profits derived from the eligible business and therefore, duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefits do not form part of net profits of the industrial undertaking for t…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Arjun Chemicals Private Ltd., Chengalput

In the result the appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1270/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. : 1268, 1269 & 1270/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. Ii Floor, 149 Velachery-Tambaram Company Circle –I(1), High Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 34. Chennai - 600 100. Pan : Aaaca5195M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Ramamurthy, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramamurthy, Advocate
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी िड.एस. सु"दर "सह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. : 1268, 1269 & 1270/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, v. II Floor, 149 Velachery-Tambaram Company Circle –I(1), High Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 34. Chennai - 600 100. PAN : AAACA5195M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीला…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Arjun Chemicals Private Ltd., Chengalput

In the result the appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1269/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. : 1268, 1269 & 1270/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. Ii Floor, 149 Velachery-Tambaram Company Circle –I(1), High Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 34. Chennai - 600 100. Pan : Aaaca5195M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Ramamurthy, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramamurthy, Advocate
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी िड.एस. सु"दर "सह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. : 1268, 1269 & 1270/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, v. II Floor, 149 Velachery-Tambaram Company Circle –I(1), High Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 34. Chennai - 600 100. PAN : AAACA5195M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीला…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Arjun Chemicals Private Ltd., Chengalput

In the result the appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1268/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. : 1268, 1269 & 1270/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. Ii Floor, 149 Velachery-Tambaram Company Circle –I(1), High Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 34. Chennai - 600 100. Pan : Aaaca5195M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Ramamurthy, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramamurthy, Advocate
Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी िड.एस. सु"दर "सह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. : 1268, 1269 & 1270/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, v. II Floor, 149 Velachery-Tambaram Company Circle –I(1), High Road, Pallikaranai, Chennai – 34. Chennai - 600 100. PAN : AAACA5195M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीला…

M/S Hubli Electricity Supply Co vs. DCIT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 539/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT-2)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…of Rs.10,09,39,888 is available on pages 3 & 4 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order. Thereafter, he submitted that the stand of ld. CIT(A) and of the AO is in line with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India v. CIT as reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC). But subsequent to that, in the case of CIT v. M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. as per judgment reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC) (copy available on pages 263 to 295 of PB), the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India (supra) was considered and thereafter ITA Nos.537 to 539/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 15 it was held that…

M/S Hubli Electricity Supply Co vs. DCIT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT-2)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…of Rs.10,09,39,888 is available on pages 3 & 4 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order. Thereafter, he submitted that the stand of ld. CIT(A) and of the AO is in line with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India v. CIT as reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC). But subsequent to that, in the case of CIT v. M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. as per judgment reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC) (copy available on pages 263 to 295 of PB), the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India (supra) was considered and thereafter ITA Nos.537 to 539/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 15 it was held that…

M/S Hubli Electricity Supply Co vs. DCIT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 537/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT-2)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…of Rs.10,09,39,888 is available on pages 3 & 4 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order. Thereafter, he submitted that the stand of ld. CIT(A) and of the AO is in line with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India v. CIT as reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC). But subsequent to that, in the case of CIT v. M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. as per judgment reported in 383 ITR 217 (SC) (copy available on pages 263 to 295 of PB), the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India (supra) was considered and thereafter ITA Nos.537 to 539/Bang/2013 Page 6 of 15 it was held that…

J.P. Morgan Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 784/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2009-10) J.P. Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Osd), Range-8(2), Prism Towers, Level Nos. 9 To 11, Mumbai (Respondent) Link Road, Mindspace, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 104 Pan : Aabcd0503B (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…ources and, therefore, the said income was not held to have been derived from ‘export transactions’ for the purposes of Sec. 80HHC of the Act. Apart therefrom, the ld. CIT- DR has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India, 317 ITR 218 (SC) to contend that the interest income cannot be said to have been derived from export transactions. 14. In reply, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the very same arguments of ld. CIT-DR have since been considered by the Tribunal specifically in its order dated 30.11.2015 (supra) for Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-0…

Neel Kanth Gum & Chemicals, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 285/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 28Section 80I

…ef. Ld. Counsel has drew our attention to provisions of Section 28(iiib)/28(iiid) of the Act. He submitted that the authorities below have wrongly applied the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Liberty India Vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218. He submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in following cases where the matter of sale of DEPB (Duty Entitled Pass Book) credit was remanded to the Assessing Officer for computation in accordance with law laid down in the case of Topman Exports (2012) 342 ITR 49 (SC). He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Nissan Exports Vs. CIT (2014) 3…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. I M C Ltd, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 371/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…eligible goods— DEPB—Tribunal was justified in holding DEPB as a profit derived from export business for the purpose of computing deduction under s. 10BA—No question of law arises—Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 233 : (2009) 28 DTR (SC) 73 : (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) distinguished; Arts & Crafts Exports vs. ITO (2012) 66 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 69 affirmed Tribunal was justified in holding DEPB as a profit derived from export business for the purpose of computing deduction under s. 10BA; no question of law arises.” ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page…

M/S. Imc Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 813/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…eligible goods— DEPB—Tribunal was justified in holding DEPB as a profit derived from export business for the purpose of computing deduction under s. 10BA—No question of law arises—Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 225 CTR (SC) 233 : (2009) 28 DTR (SC) 73 : (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) distinguished; Arts & Crafts Exports vs. ITO (2012) 66 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 69 affirmed Tribunal was justified in holding DEPB as a profit derived from export business for the purpose of computing deduction under s. 10BA; no question of law arises.” ITA No.813,781/K/09 & 370-71/K/12 A.Ys.05-06 to 07-08 M/s IMC Ltd. vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Ko. Page…