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 366,470 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

Ethix Healthcare, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, both on the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 147 and on merits of the case, the order of the AO as well as the ld CIT(A) is hereby set-aside and matter is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 501/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri VivekVardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…al to business and hence, deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act was rightly claimed on the same. The contention of the assessee' counsel is not found to be acceptable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Liberty India Ltd. Vs CIT (317 ITR 218) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Court that income in the nature of duty drawback and DFPB benefits does not have a nexus of the first degree with the industrial undertaking and is therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 801B of the Act. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Court also considered the question as to whether such remissions should…

Zydus Hospira Oncology Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 949/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…th the assessment year in which the unit begins production or provision of services. For the next five assessment years, the deduction is reduced to 50%. Principal CIT was of the view that the Supreme Court, in its ruling in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) held that the words "derived from" are narrower than "attributable to" and intended to cover only the first degree of connection with the eligible profits. In this case, the Supreme Court stated that Duty Drawback and the sale of DEPB licenses were incentives from government schemes and did not constitute profits "derived from" the industrial un…

Zydus Hospira Oncology Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 948/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT. D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 263

…th the assessment year in which the unit begins production or provision of services. For the next five assessment years, the deduction is reduced to 50%. Principal CIT was of the view that the Supreme Court, in its ruling in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) held that the words "derived from" are narrower than "attributable to" and intended to cover only the first degree of connection with the eligible profits. In this case, the Supreme Court stated that Duty Drawback and the sale of DEPB licenses were incentives from government schemes and did not constitute profits "derived from" the industrial un…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Vvd and Sons Private Limited, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1792/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1792/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Tirunelveli. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Vvd & Sons Private Vs. Limited, No.182, Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin – 628 003. Pan: Aaacv 8438J (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Shiva Srinivas, Addl.Cit Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश /O R Der Per S.R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai 19, Dated 30.04.2024 & Pertains To

Section 4Section 801Section 801ASection 80I

…अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL `B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1792/CHNY/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Tirunelveli. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant by प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent by VVD and Sons Private Vs. Limited, No.182, Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin – 628 003. PAN: AAACV 8438J (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Shi…

Kalindee Estates Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…f Income-tax Department at Kolkata has already made necessary enquiries in the case of assessee and passed the said information to ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur where the assessee is being assessed. The case law as cited by the assessee of M/s Lovely Exports (P) Ltd 317 ITR 218 over which the assessee has relied upon is of no help to the assessee. Since it is a distinguishable in the case of the assessee and the ratio thereof cannot be applied in the case of assessee. Whereas the assessee has tried to justify its action mainly be taking following pleas:- i. The identity, genuineness and capacity of the investor. ii. Ass…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…not I.T.A Nos.712 & 741 /Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 3 Sun Pharma Labs. Ltd. vs. DCIT income derived from industrial undertaking as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Sterling Foods reported in 237 ITR 579 and Liberty India -Vs- CIT reported in 317 ITR 218. The above disallowance of deduction was upheld by CIT (Appeal) in his order, wherein he has observed that identical issue has been decided against the erstwhile Sun Pharma, Sikkim [SPS] by CIT(Appeals)-37, Mumbai, for A.Y. 2010-11 following the order of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries which was also merged with assessee…

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…not I.T.A Nos.712 & 741 /Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 3 Sun Pharma Labs. Ltd. vs. DCIT income derived from industrial undertaking as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Sterling Foods reported in 237 ITR 579 and Liberty India -Vs- CIT reported in 317 ITR 218. The above disallowance of deduction was upheld by CIT (Appeal) in his order, wherein he has observed that identical issue has been decided against the erstwhile Sun Pharma, Sikkim [SPS] by CIT(Appeals)-37, Mumbai, for A.Y. 2010-11 following the order of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries which was also merged with assessee…

Regalia Laminates, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 62(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Regalia Laminates Mcd Vs Income Tax Officer Buliding, Ist Floor Db Gupta Ward- 62 (5) Road Paharganj, New Delhi- New Delhi 110055 Pan No. Aaifr7691F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Regalia Laminates MCD Vs Income Tax Officer Buliding, Ist Floor DB Gupta Ward- 62 (5) Road Paharganj, New Delhi- New Delhi 110055 PAN No. AAIFR7691F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellants by Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Respondent by Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National…

Satyanarayan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Kolkata

ITA 444/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.444/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

…rge amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they Page 16 of 21 I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2024 A Y: 2012-13, Satyanarayan Holdings Pvt. Ltd. are bogus. The Apex Court in CIT v/s. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 218 in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle t…

ITO, Ward- 1)1), Nagpur vs. Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…viso to s 68 (which creates an obligation on the issuing Co. To explain the source of share capital & premium) has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013 and does not have retrospective effect. Prior thereto, as per Lovely Exports 317 ITR 218 (SC), if the AO regards the share premium as bogus, he has to assess the shareholders but cannot assess the same as the issuing company's unexplained cash credit." 16. In this view of the matter and considering the ratio of the case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved the share application money receiv…

Dhanuka Realty Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 202/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 56(1)Section 56(2)

…xplain the source of share capital and premium) has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 and does not have retrospective effect and even otherwise prior thereto as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports, 317 ITR 218, if the AO regards the share premium as bogus, he has to assess the share capital but cannot assess the same as the issuing company’s unexplained cash credit. Apart from all these judicial pronouncements and as per factual position the share premium exceeding fair market value is brought to tax on statute book first time by way of insertion of Se…

S Kant Healthcare Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1975/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. S. Kant Healthcare Ltd., DCIT-5(3)(1), 3-A, Shiv Sagar Estate, 5th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Worli S.O Mumbai M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai – 400 021 Maharashtra Maharashtra PAN: AAECS5406P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vipin Goyal, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. A.R Date of Hearing : 18 . 07 . 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24 . 07 . 2024 O R D E R Per :…

M/S. Housing Develop, Ment Finance Corpn. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 287/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ement for deployment of funds before utilizing them in the business of housing finance and to partly recoup the interest cost in this manner. The Revenue strongly places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) in which it was held that incentive profits are not eligible profits de- rived from eligible business under section 80IB and that they belong to category of ancillary profits of such undertakings. (10) The assessee has argued that the section uses the phrase ‘business of even the other income is eligible for deduction. The assessee in this r…

Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5991/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit 697, Udyog Vihar Phase-5, Circle-23(1) Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aaccb1828N Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward 4(4), Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Phase Ii, New Delhi. Naraina Indl. Area, Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aaccb1828N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated Nil & 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10372/17-18 & 10390/18-19, Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ated 16.12.2016 is relied. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and observe that relying the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC); Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC); and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), the disallowances have been sustained on the basis that these incomes cannot be held to be derived from the business activity exempted u/s 80IC of the Act. However, we are of the considered view that the components of income/deduction u/s 80IC is denied to the extent of Rs.7,10,45,307/- ar…

Bhagwati Products Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-23(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5077/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit 697, Udyog Vihar Phase-5, Circle-23(1) Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana – 122 015. Pan: Aaccb1828N Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bhagwati Products Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward 4(4), Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Phase Ii, New Delhi. Naraina Indl. Area, Delhi – 110 028. Pan: Aaccb1828N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Supriya Mehta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated Nil & 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10372/17-18 & 10390/18-19, Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR &
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ated 16.12.2016 is relied. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the material on record and observe that relying the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278 (SC); Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC); and CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC), the disallowances have been sustained on the basis that these incomes cannot be held to be derived from the business activity exempted u/s 80IC of the Act. However, we are of the considered view that the components of income/deduction u/s 80IC is denied to the extent of Rs.7,10,45,307/- ar…

Pragya Traders (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 521/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

…ound satisfied. (ii) Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in CIT vis. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 218 in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle t…

Neel Kanth Gum and Chemicals, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle Jhunjhunu, Income Tax Office, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 805/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801Section 80I

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 805/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M.s, Neelkanth Gum and Chemicals cuke The ACIT Vs. Near Railway Station Circle-Jhunjhunu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331403 (Raj) Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFN 6786C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri G.S. Mehta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@R…

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

…an addition of Rs. 56,13,895/- on account of disallowance of exemption under section 10B of the Act with respect to miscellaneous incomes/other incomes/scrap sales and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT (317 ITR 218) held that the impugned incomes are not derived from the eligible units at Bangalore and Noida for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10B of the Act. 3.3 The Ld. TPO proposed adjustment in respect of transaction of receipt of interest on loan amounting to Rs. 8,09,277/- by substituting the Arms Length rate of six months Euribo…

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6th Floor, Room No.608, 6th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCM9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessmen…