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

Commr of Income Tax vs. Uniplas India Ltd

The appeal is allowed

ITR/2/2004HC Delhi19 Oct 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 80Section 80HSection 80J

…n the basis of ratio export turnover in relation of turnover of the entire business. 2. Revenue contends in the light of subsequent decisions of Supreme Court in Pandian Chemicals Limited vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC), the appeal has to be allowed. It is submitted by Mr.Shivpuri that the expression “derived from” has been interpreted in a narrow manner consistently by the Supreme court which has held that there should be an immediate proximity between the nature of the income earning activity and the export business of the assessee for the income to…

M/S Chayagraphics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue in course of proceedings u/s 143 (3) r

ITA 7/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT DR &
Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…on u/s 80IB is allowable for those incomes only which are derive4d from eligible industrial undertaking and Duty Drawback is not eligible for this deduction as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT as reported in 317 ITR 218. This judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is dated 31.08.2009 but courts do not make law and it only declares what is law and therefore, it has to be accepted that Drawback makes the assessment order erroneous. Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned of CIT passed u/s 263. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. Now, we take…

DCIT vs. M/S Chayagraphics Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue in course of proceedings u/s 143 (3) r

ITA 1789/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT DR &
Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…on u/s 80IB is allowable for those incomes only which are derive4d from eligible industrial undertaking and Duty Drawback is not eligible for this deduction as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT as reported in 317 ITR 218. This judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is dated 31.08.2009 but courts do not make law and it only declares what is law and therefore, it has to be accepted that Drawback makes the assessment order erroneous. Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned of CIT passed u/s 263. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. Now, we take…

M/S Chayagraphics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and revenue in course of proceedings u/s 143 (3) r

ITA 77/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT DR &
Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…on u/s 80IB is allowable for those incomes only which are derive4d from eligible industrial undertaking and Duty Drawback is not eligible for this deduction as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT as reported in 317 ITR 218. This judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is dated 31.08.2009 but courts do not make law and it only declares what is law and therefore, it has to be accepted that Drawback makes the assessment order erroneous. Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned of CIT passed u/s 263. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 7. Now, we take…

M/S. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., Tuticorin vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 718/CHNY/2011[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

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

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

…deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 5. The Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue has also submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has placed his reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Pandian Chemicals v. CIT (262 ITR 278) and in Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218). In view of these judgments of Apex Court, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act of the amount received from interest income, management fees and corporate guarantee commission. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant ma…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Sterlite Industries Ltd., Tuticorin

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/CHNY/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2016AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Dr. Anita Sumanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 80

…deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 5. The Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue has also submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has placed his reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Pandian Chemicals v. CIT (262 ITR 278) and in Liberty India v. CIT (317 ITR 218). In view of these judgments of Apex Court, according to the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel, the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act of the amount received from interest income, management fees and corporate guarantee commission. 6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant ma…

M/S. Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 575/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri D. Karunakara Rao

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry; Mr. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Bangar, Sr. AR
Section 80ISection 80Q

…t the rental receipts earned out the unsold flats of the housing project should be held eligible for deduction. Further, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) for the proposition that the income with first degree nexus should be considered as eligible income for the purpose of claim of deduction uj/s 80IB of the Act. 6. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as cited deci…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi vs. Nanda Mint & Pine Chemicals Ltd

ITA/677/2016HC Delhi23 Sept 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 80

…the exemption notification to be eligible for refund, the method of accounting adopted was questionable. On an appreciation of these facts and based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2009 317 ITR 218 (SC), the AO added that an amount was in excess of ` 10 crores. The assessee succeeded in appeal before the CIT’s appeal – a decision that was finally upheld by the ITAT. It was urged on behalf of the revenue that the findings with respect to double benefit claimed by the assessee who collected the excise duty amount and thereafter claim…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 511/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

…vt. Ltd. 46 Taxmann. Com. 167. 16. Against this the ld DR submitted that interest income is earned from the fixed deposits and the issue is squarely covered against the assessee in view of this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT 262 ITR 278 (SC). 17. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Assessee has earned interest on short term deposit with the bank and appellant treated it as business income whereas the ld Assessing Officer was of the view that interest income is chargeable to tax as income from other sources and as it i…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 510/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

…vt. Ltd. 46 Taxmann. Com. 167. 16. Against this the ld DR submitted that interest income is earned from the fixed deposits and the issue is squarely covered against the assessee in view of this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Liberty India Vs CIT 317 ITR 218 and Pandian Chemicals Ltd Vs. CIT 262 ITR 278 (SC). 17. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. Assessee has earned interest on short term deposit with the bank and appellant treated it as business income whereas the ld Assessing Officer was of the view that interest income is chargeable to tax as income from other sources and as it i…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Gujrat Nre Coke Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 68/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T., Circle-12, -Versus- M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan: Aabcg 6225 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) For The Respondent : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 801Section 801BSection 80ISection 80l

…ities 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-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 incentive…

M/S. Mirabelle International, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2258/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 M/S. Mirabelle International, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 13/14, Windsor Mansion, Income Tax, Circle-31(1), 14Th Janpath Lane, New Delhi 1405, Floor, Civic Centre, Delhi. Pan : Aabfm1743P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Charu Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 07/02/2014 By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxvi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2002-03, Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxvi Is Wrong Is Deterring The Total Income At Rs. 2,55,22,744/-. Ii. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Wrong Is Ignoring All Material Fact & Evidence & Evidence Produced Before Him While Computing The Total Income. Iii. That The Computation Of Total Income Is Bad In Law & Is Against The Actual Facts & Evidence On Record.

Section 143(3)Section 57Section 80H

…under the head ‘income from other sources’. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), relying on the findings given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods Vs. CIT, 237 ITR 579 and Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2009] 317 ITR 218, held that there must be a direct nexus between the profit and gains and the industrial undertaking for application of the words “derived from”, whereas in the instant case the nexus was not direct but only incidental. 13. In the case of Laxminarain Khaitan (supra), learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that purpose of depositing…

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Syntel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5850/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Manjunatha SwamyFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.R
Section 10ASection 28

…ce was not eligible for deduction u/s.10A/10B of the Act." (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the ratio of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) wherein it is held that that certain income may constitute profit from business u/s 28, yet the same cannot be construed as profits derived from an Industrial undertaking and hence would not be eligible for deduction u/s.10A/10B of the Act, which ratio has been followed by the Hon'ble ITAT, 'E' Bench, Mumbai in the case of Tricorn India Ltd. vs.…

DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata vs. M/S Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…re which has no direct nexus or connection with the profit of industrial undertaking should not be considered in computing deduction u/s. 80IA. The aforesaid view is supported by the principle laid down in the following decisions. Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) CIT vs.Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008 A.Y 03-04 Graphit e India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Rng-11, Kol. Page 14 Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) Further, Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. v…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, R-11, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 305/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…re which has no direct nexus or connection with the profit of industrial undertaking should not be considered in computing deduction u/s. 80IA. The aforesaid view is supported by the principle laid down in the following decisions. Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) CIT vs.Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008 A.Y 03-04 Graphit e India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Rng-11, Kol. Page 14 Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) Further, Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. v…

Graphite India Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, R-11, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 304/KOL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 154Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…re which has no direct nexus or connection with the profit of industrial undertaking should not be considered in computing deduction u/s. 80IA. The aforesaid view is supported by the principle laid down in the following decisions. Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) CIT vs.Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.304-05 & 559/Kol/2008 A.Y 03-04 Graphit e India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Rng-11, Kol. Page 14 Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC) Further, Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Balarampur Chini Mills Ltd. v…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed’’

ITA 479/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. M. Koteswar Rao, CITFor Respondent: Dr. Anita Sumanth, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 28

…g the facts and circumstances it indicate that the receipts from sale of carbon credit cannot be treated as derived from the undertaking and also the apex court decision in the case of Sterling foods reiterated in Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (317 ITR 218) the claim of the 80lA cannot stand the test of law and hence disallowed. 7.6 Regarding the quantum of relief the Assessing Officer may examine whether receipts from 2009- 10 is to be taken in the relevant year and not in assessment year 2010-11. 8.0 In the result the appeal is partly allowed.” Therefore, the assessee is in appeal. 6. We have hea…

Rita International, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 2845/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2845/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Rita International, The A.C.I.T. – 15(2), बनाम/ 6, Shivneri Chs, Bkc, Bandra (E), V. Parsiwada, Mumbai. Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400099. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aagfr 3596M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav,Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “D” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2845/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s Rita International, The A.C.I.T. – 15(2), बनाम/ 6, Shivneri CHS, BKC, Bandra (E), v. Parsiwada, Mumbai. Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400099. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAGFR 3596M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vishwas Mehendale Revenue by : Shri Vishwas Jadhav,Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 23.5.2016 घोषणा क" त…

Valiant Glass Works P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

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

ITA 1612/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri G. S. Pannu & Sri Sanjay Gargvaliant Glass Works Pvt. Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O. Shankarlal Jain & Income Tax, Associates, 12, Engineer Central Circle-38, Mumbai Building, 265, Princess Street, Mumbai 400 002 Pan:Aaacv 1224 E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. M. Doss, (CIT& DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154Section 263Section 28Section 80

…icer u/s. 153A of t he Income-tax Act is erroneous as Assessing Officer has not decided whether DEPB receipts can be considered as profit derived from industrial undertaking. Similar issue has now been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218 wherein it was held that DEPB receipts are not derived from industrial undertaking and hence, these receipts are not to be taken into consideration in computing deduction u/s. 80 IB of the Income-tax Act. Thus, the order of Assessing Officer is not only erroneous, but it is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the 5 assessee has been al…

Pioneer Foods & Agro Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6088/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar Singh
Section 80Section 80I

…Ld. Counsel for the assessee and the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the orders on record. Ld. AR of the assessee argued that the ground raised in the present appeal are covered by the decision of Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC). Ld. DR for Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The issue before us for our consideration has three facets, which include excluding of duty draw back, VKUY License and Foreign Exchange difference. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the case is entirely covered by the decision in the case of Liberty India Vs CIT report…