Liberty India v. CIT

Pratibha Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. 5(2), Mumbai

…AY.2008-09 and the order passed by the AO u/s.154 of the Act on 13.3.12. With regard to the interest income the FAA relied upon the case of Godavari Sugar Mills (191 ITR359 and Sameer Diamonds Export (254ITR548), Sterling Foods (237 ITR579) and Liberty India (317 ITR 218) and held that Interest income was not derived from the business and was to be taxed under the head income from other 6299-Pratibha sources.Referring to the case of Asian Star Co. Ltd. (326ITR356), he upheld the order of the AO. 4.Before us,none appeared,on behalf of the assessee, as stated earlier.The Departmental Representative (DR) supported…

Prayas Writing Instruments, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoi.T.A. No.7507/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) फनाभ/ M/S. Prayas Writing Dcit-24(3), Instruments, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. 113, Sati Industrial Estate, Bandra Kurla Complex, Goregaon (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-51. Mumbai – 400 063. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aagfp6727P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Somnath Ukkali, Jcit

…perusal of the cited decisions of the Tribunal (supra) in the assessee’s own case, I am of the opinion the issue raised in the present appeal stands covered against the assessee in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC). Accordingly, the decision taken by the CIT (A) vide para 3 and its sub-paras is confirmed. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2016. (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 21.6.2016 3 व.नन.स./ OKK…

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. CIT(A) 3, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Syngenta India Ltd., The Dy. Cit 1(3), Amar Paradigm, Mumbai Vs. S N 110/11/3 Baner Road, Pune 411 045 Pan Aaecs9424P (Appellant) Respondent)

…ITO vs. Kiran Enterprises 92 TTJ 104 iii) ITAT Pune Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Kripa Chemicals Private Ltd. 82 ITD 449 Besides these it was submitted that it was only after the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT 317 ITR 218, which was rendered on 31.08.2009 these matters were decided against the assessee by the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the first time came on 09.11.2012. Thus, at the time of filing of return of income the assessee’s claim was bona fide. The detailed submissions and explanations of the assessee before the…

Prajapai Construction Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

…that the grounds urged in the appeal relates to deduction claimed u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of miscellaneous charges collected by it. We notice that learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India (317 ITR 218) to decide the issue against the assessee. Since learned CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order. Accordingly we confirm the order passed by learned CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Ulka Sea Foods P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…Act.” After considering the arguments as well as the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in question by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (2009), 317 ITR 218 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) has also taken into consideration that the DEPB/Duty Drawback are incentives which flow from the scheme framed by the Central Government or from the provisions of the Customs Act, and since the incentive profits are not profits derived from eligible business u/s 80IB, therefore, they belong to the category of ancillary profit…

Ulka Seafoods P.Ltd, Maharashtra vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

…Act.” After considering the arguments as well as the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in question by relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT (2009), 317 ITR 218 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) has also taken into consideration that the DEPB/Duty Drawback are incentives which flow from the scheme framed by the Central Government or from the provisions of the Customs Act, and since the incentive profits are not profits derived from eligible business u/s 80IB, therefore, they belong to the category of ancillary profit…

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

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 J.P. Morgan Services India P. Dcit 8(2) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Prism Tower, Level No.9 To M.K. Rd Vs. 11, Link Rd, Mindspace, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W) Mumbai-400064 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabcd0503B

…interest is deposit/FDRs/loans and the same cannot be termed as ‘derived from’ export oriented undertaking. The connotation ‘derived from’ is much narrower than that of the phrase ‘attributable to’. He placed reliance on following judgments: i. Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC) ii. Pandian Chemicals 262 ITR 278(SC) iii. Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579(SC) iv. Shah Originals 327 ITR 19(SC) and v. Swani Spice 332 ITR 288 (SC). 7.4. The Ld. CIT-DR made an alternative argument also that in case impugned interest income is considered as business income then quantification of the amount of deduction allowable should be done…

The Tata Power Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…ith "other deductions" which consists of sections 80U to 80V. Heading "C" is relevant for considering the issue in these appeals. The relevant provisions that are to be considered are sections 80-I, 80- IA and 80-IB. In the case of Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) ; [2009] 225 CTR (SC) 233 ; [2009] 28 DTR (SC) 73, the apex court considered the scope of sections 80-I, 80-IA and also section 80-IB of the Act, wherein, it has been held that Chapter VI-A provides for incentives in the form of tax deductions essentially belong to the category of "profit-linked incentives". Therefore, when section 80-IA/80-…

Ucb Indiap.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6681/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ucb India Pvt. Ltd., The Ito 7(3)-3, बनाम/ 504, Peninsula Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 आयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 6454/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 The Ito 7(3)-3, Ucb India Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 504, Peninsula Towers, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013

…t interest should be excluded while computing the deduction u/s. 80HHC read with clause (baa) of Explanation. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs CIT (317 ITR 218) held that deduction u/s. 80HHC is not allowable on interest income since interest is not derived from the business of the assessee . In other words, it was held that first degree source is not established in so far as interest on current account is concerned therefore the same was excluded from computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. 10…

Opera Clothing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Opera Clothing Vs Ito-18(1)(3), Private Limited, Mumbai 2 & 4, Shah & Nahar Industrial Estate, S.J. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo4522H

…argument by the assessee, before the Assessing Officer, was that it is to be treated as income “derived from” the business of industrial undertaking. However, considering the totality of facts and the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in Liberty India vs CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC), it was held that duty drawback and other export incentives cannot be said to be income “derived from” industrial undertaking. 2.3. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the stand taken in the assessment order was affirmed. The assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 5 M/s Opera Clothing Private Limi…