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

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

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 781/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…

Bright Brothers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 6907/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6907/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Bright Brothers Ltd. Addl. Cit Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor 610/611, Nirman Kendra Dr. Moses Road, Famous Studio Lane Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. Pan:Aaacb 3010 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम आयक अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयक आयक अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 14.8.14 Of Cit(A)-14,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing,Job-Work & Trading Of Injection-Moulded Plastic Products,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2011,Declaring Total Income At Rs.1.81 Crores.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 28.10.13,Determining Its Income At Rs.3.38 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh-ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “बी मुंबई बी बी” ” ” ” खंडपीठ बी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“B”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6907/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Bright Brothers Ltd. Addl. CIT Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5th Floor 610/611, Nirman Kendra Dr. Moses Road, Famous Studio Lane Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mahalaxmi,Mumbai-400 011. PAN:AAACB 3…

Meher Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 1(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby Dismissed

ITA 6222/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.6222/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Meher Synthetics Pvt. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 1(2)(3) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 412-A, Lotus House, 33-A, Mumbai - 400020 New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm1573H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई "ायपीठ “बी‘’ मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.6222/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/s. Meher Synthetics Pvt. बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 1(2)(3) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 412-A, Lotus House, 33-A, Mumbai - 400020 New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCM1573H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by: Shri Manoj Kumar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 04.10.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement:.06.…

Aarti Projects and Constructions, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4190/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Aarti Projects & Vs. Dcit – 5(1), Mumbai Constructions, Ackruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Marol Midc, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aaefa5526F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…he profit claimed as deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act was not derived from the housing project but from sale of unutilized FSI. For arriving at his conclusion the AO has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moon Star Developers (367 ITR 621). 5. The AO further observed that since the FSI sold formed part of the project under development, the project could not be said to be completed and, therefore, deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act was not allowable. 6. As per AO since the FSI sold to each of…

Vesuvius India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

ITA 614/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ties from the bank, does not have an immediate nexus with the export business and therefore, has to necessarily be treated as income from other sources and not business income. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT, reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) has observed and held as under :- .. Duty drawback receipts and DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits of eligible industrial undertakings for the purpose of the deduction under section 80-I/80-IA/80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Act. 1961, broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, viz. investment-linked…

Vesuvius India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata

ITA 613/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2016AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

…ties from the bank, does not have an immediate nexus with the export business and therefore, has to necessarily be treated as income from other sources and not business income. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT, reported in 317 ITR 218 (SC) has observed and held as under :- .. Duty drawback receipts and DEPB benefits do not form part of the net profits of eligible industrial undertakings for the purpose of the deduction under section 80-I/80-IA/80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Act. 1961, broadly provides for two types of tax incentives, viz. investment-linked…

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 3140/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 1Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…0/- is also only attributable to the industrial undertaking. There is no first degree nexus between the industrial undertaking and these two items of income. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 218, deduction u/s 80IB cannot be allowed in respect of the income on account of claim and on account of packing materials. The action of the Assessing Officer is, therefore upheld. The assessee has made no submissions in respect of its without prejudice contention that in the event the aforesaid amounts are not considered for the purpose of computin…

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 3139/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 1Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…0/- is also only attributable to the industrial undertaking. There is no first degree nexus between the industrial undertaking and these two items of income. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 218, deduction u/s 80IB cannot be allowed in respect of the income on account of claim and on account of packing materials. The action of the Assessing Officer is, therefore upheld. The assessee has made no submissions in respect of its without prejudice contention that in the event the aforesaid amounts are not considered for the purpose of computin…

The Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai

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

ITA 3138/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 1Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…0/- is also only attributable to the industrial undertaking. There is no first degree nexus between the industrial undertaking and these two items of income. Hence, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. reported in 317 ITR 218, deduction u/s 80IB cannot be allowed in respect of the income on account of claim and on account of packing materials. The action of the Assessing Officer is, therefore upheld. The assessee has made no submissions in respect of its without prejudice contention that in the event the aforesaid amounts are not considered for the purpose of computin…

Sans Frontiers, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3006/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Sans Frontiers, Ito, Ward – 32(3), 171, (New No.36), New Delhi. Western Avenue, Vs. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan : Aacfs 1846 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 28Section 80HSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-I”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sans Frontiers, ITO, Ward – 32(3), 171, (New No.36), New Delhi. Western Avenue, Vs. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. PAN : AACFS 1846 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Satish Khosla, Adv. Respondent by : Shri F. R. Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 05-12-2016 Date of pronouncement : 09-12-2016 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New…

M/S Apeejay Tea Limited(Marged With Apeejay Surrendra Corporate Services Ltd.), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - III, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2456/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT,Sr.DR

…to re-compute accordingly. Accordingly, Ground No. 4 of the Revenue is partly allowed.” 14. The ld. DR however supported the orders of the revenue authorities and placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. 317 ITR 218 (SC). 15. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. In CIT Vs. Kothari Plantations & Industries Ltd. 203 ITR 547 (Cal) the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court had to examine the provisions of Rule 8 of the rules in the context of the action of the revenue in taxing receipt by an Assessee to which Rule 8 applies of a sum which fell…

A.C.I.T Cir - 36, Kolkata. vs. M/S Sri Ram Commercial Co, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f 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.” In the present case the assessee is a 100% EOU and has income from exports. Besides the assesse…

Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Tea Propoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2161/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f 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.” In the present case the assessee is a 100% EOU and has income from exports. Besides the assesse…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T RG - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1897/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f 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.” In the present case the assessee is a 100% EOU and has income from exports. Besides the assesse…

M/S Tea Promoters (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2016AY 2002-03

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

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f 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.” In the present case the assessee is a 100% EOU and has income from exports. Besides the assesse…

ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Core Jewellery P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 10ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

…culars of income for evasion of tax. The ITAT's decision in the case of the appellant was delivered on 18.01.2010 which was much later than the filing of return of income and similarly the decision of the supreme court in the case of Liberty India reported in 317 ITR 218 also came much later than the date of filing of return. Hence the deduction u/s 10A was claimed under the bonafide belief that appellant was entitled to the same. It has also been stated that the claim has not been held to be false by the AO and the only, reason given by the AO for disallowance of deduction it that assessee earned forward contrac…

ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asha K Ringshia, Mumbai

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

ITA 5459/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Ito – 21(1)(1) – Mumbai Vs. Ms. Asha K Ringshia Pandurang Sadan, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr3758C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & ITO – 21(1)(1) – Mumbai Vs. Ms. Asha K Ringshia Pandurang Sadan, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 PAN/GIR No. AACPR3758C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Mr. A. Ramachandran Revenue by Mr. Rishabh Shah Date of Hearing 31/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement 04/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, in the matter of order passed u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of…

ITO 21(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asha K Ringshia, Mumbai

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

ITA 5458/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Ito – 21(1)(1) – Mumbai Vs. Ms. Asha K Ringshia Pandurang Sadan, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aacpr3758C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & ITO – 21(1)(1) – Mumbai Vs. Ms. Asha K Ringshia Pandurang Sadan, Hanuman Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai – 400 057 PAN/GIR No. AACPR3758C Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Mr. A. Ramachandran Revenue by Mr. Rishabh Shah Date of Hearing 31/10/2016 Date of Pronouncement 04/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, in the matter of order passed u/s. 143(3) read with Section 147 of…

DCIT (Ltu) -1, Mumbai vs. Lupin Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7513/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sanjay Garg (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…the manufacturing activity i.e. the first degree link is not available to this receipt. Accordingly the Assessing Officer, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. Vs. CIT 4 M/s. Lupin Limited (317 ITR 218), held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, learned CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee that the excise duty refund was a capital receipt. However, he held that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act and in this regard the Ld CIT(A) placed reliance on the dec…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

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