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

ACIT Cen Ci-43 vs. Roha Dyechem P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue except ITA No

ITA 10/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Acit Cen Ci-43 Rohadyechem Pvt Ltd., 6Th Floor, R.No. 659, Aayakar Survoday Mill Compund, Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. M.P. Mills, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai-400 034 Pan No. Aaacr 4974P Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80HSection 80ISection 92C

…essee submitted that issue in dispute is covered against the assessee by order of the ITAT in ITA no. 398/Mum/2010 for assessment year 2001-02, wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India versus CIT 317 ITR 218. ITA No. 10,4293, 4294, 4295,2859, 2860, 2861, 2862,2863/MUM/2009, 6015, 5969/MUM/2014,6401/MUM/2008 A.Y. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 7 The learned Departmental Representative (DR) concurred with the factual position pointed out by the learned counsel of the assessee. 6.3 We have heard submission of the parties on the i…

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ion from such profits and gains, as specified in subsection (3)." The provisions as contained in sec 80-IC(1) does not define the words 'profits and gains derived by any undertaking'. We note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs CIT (317 ITR 218) has held that items of income which have first degree nexus with the business of the industrial undertaking can be held to be profits & gains derived from the undertaking in order to avail the profit-linked deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. In this background, it is now pertinent to examine the nature of each item credited under the head 'other inc…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1, Kolkata vs. M/S.Brahmaputra Carbon Ltd

ITA/140/2019HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…O-150 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/140/2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. BRAHMAPUTRA CARBON LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 26th September, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhatttacharjee, Adv. … for appellant Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv. …for respondent The Court : This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) is directed against t…

Karan Tejraj Builders, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 428/PUN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.428/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karan Tejraj Builders, Unit 501, Karan Tej Bonita, Cts No. 1187/16, Off Ghole Road, Pune – 411 005. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaifk1891P

For Appellant: Shri S.N.PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 80I

…hat the alleged payee Mr. Sagar Bagul had nowhere purchased the corresponding residential unit so as to satisfy the clinching “derived from” condition having first degree nexus in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Liberty India V/s CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218(SC). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee also could not invite our attention to the Assessing Officers detailed inquiries on the instant issue as well. We thus quote Malabar Industrial Co. V/s. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) that lack of such an inquiry during the assessment itself renders the same to be an erroneous one causing pr…

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5388/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…t income of Rs.7,11,020/- as only business income and brought to tax under the head „income from business or profession‟. The ld. CIT(A) M/s. Hikal Ltd., relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd., vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 and upheld the action of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the ld. AO in treating the interest income to be brought to tax under the head „profits and gains of business or profession‟. 4.2. It is not in dispute that the interest income earned by the assessee of Rs.7,11,020/- in its export oriented undertaking has been bro…

Hikal Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5387/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…t income of Rs.7,11,020/- as only business income and brought to tax under the head „income from business or profession‟. The ld. CIT(A) M/s. Hikal Ltd., relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd., vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 and upheld the action of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the ld. AO in treating the interest income to be brought to tax under the head „profits and gains of business or profession‟. 4.2. It is not in dispute that the interest income earned by the assessee of Rs.7,11,020/- in its export oriented undertaking has been bro…

DCIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5372/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2009-10
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)

…t income of Rs.7,11,020/- as only business income and brought to tax under the head „income from business or profession‟. The ld. CIT(A) M/s. Hikal Ltd., relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd., vs CIT reported in 317 ITR 218 and upheld the action of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) did not disturb the finding of the ld. AO in treating the interest income to be brought to tax under the head „profits and gains of business or profession‟. 4.2. It is not in dispute that the interest income earned by the assessee of Rs.7,11,020/- in its export oriented undertaking has been bro…

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…the ld. CIT(A) placed reliance upon several case laws as under: 1. Green Infra Ltd. vs. ITO (in ITA No. 7762/Mum/2012 dated 23.08.2013 for A.Y. 2009-10); 2. ACIT vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2014 TIOL 656 ITAT Mum 3. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 218 [2008] ITOL 238 (SC)(IT) 4. M/s. Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT 368 ITR 001 (Bom) 5. CIT vs. Goa Sponge and Power Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2012); 6. CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. (Appeal No. 613 of 2014) 7. CIT vs. Green Infra Ltd. (IT Appeal No. 1162 of 2014) 146 DTR (Bom) 262 (2017) (A.Y. 2011-12) ITA No.…

M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2299/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Vs. 129, Park Street Kolkata Kolkata-17 (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 129, Park Street Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 14/Cit(A)-22/14-15/16-17/Kol Dated 31.02.2018 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Before Us, Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Represented The Revenue. Ld. Counsel For The Ita No. 2299/Kol/2019 By Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. Ays 2014-15 Assessee Has Placed On Record, A Brief Note On The Submissions Made Along With Paper Books & Chart Substantiate The Claims Made By The Assessee In The Assessment Year Under Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80ISection 8O

…rap credited by the assessee in the P&L account cannot be treated as having been derived from industrial undertaking on similar analogy and has also failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218? 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D for Rs.3,05,68,576/-.” 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2014 which was s…

D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1741/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Vs. 129, Park Street Kolkata Kolkata-17 (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 129, Park Street Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 14/Cit(A)-22/14-15/16-17/Kol Dated 31.02.2018 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Before Us, Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Represented The Revenue. Ld. Counsel For The Ita No. 2299/Kol/2019 By Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. Ays 2014-15 Assessee Has Placed On Record, A Brief Note On The Submissions Made Along With Paper Books & Chart Substantiate The Claims Made By The Assessee In The Assessment Year Under Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80ISection 8O

…rap credited by the assessee in the P&L account cannot be treated as having been derived from industrial undertaking on similar analogy and has also failed to appreciate the principle laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218? 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D for Rs.3,05,68,576/-.” 7. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of paints having its works located at various places. Assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2014 which was s…

Asahi Songwon Colors Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the Assessee are hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

…al assessed loss of NIL after adjusting brought forward depreciation for Assessment Year 2008- 09 & 2009-10 wherein disallowances u/s. 14A, 10B and 80IA were made. The A.O. following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT 317 ITR 218 (SC) held that the profits eligible for deduction u/s. 10B should be derived by the undertaking from ‘exports’ of articles or things and should not be incidental to it thereby the claim of deduction u/s. 10B on sale of scraps from EOU unit of Rs. 1,06,232/- was denied. Similarly, rate fluctuation of Rs. 36,16,223/- on the foreign currency loan av…

Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- Panvel -Circle Panvel, Panvel

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3132/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd The Dcit, Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Panvel, Circle Panvel Vs. Seva Uran, Mumbai-400 707 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccg1899E Assessee By : Shri Manish Kanth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kanth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 801ASection 80I

…arned CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee and held that interest received on fixed deposits and income tax refund are not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act in view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Liberty India Vs. CIT 317 ITR 218, therefore, the claim of the assessee is not tenable. By claiming such excess deduction, assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the FDR interest income of ₹8,67,66,538/- which is not derived from undertaking, he levied the penalty of Rs. 2,81,51,400/-, against this assessee is in appeal before us. 08. We have heard t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Insecticides (India) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1296/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Parekh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

…he income should have direct nexus between profit and gains and the industrial undertaking. They have cited a few judicial decisions as mentioned in the submissions. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the apex court in the case of Liberty India (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC), it can be said that indirect expenses which do not have any direct nexus with the undertaking cannot be deducted in computing the profit of the undertaking. The appellant has been able to establish the direct nexus between income and expenses of the industrial units situated at Samba and Udhampur. It is also argued that the indirect and hea…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2692/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…mitted that it is not a profit derived from the undertaking. The benefit under section 80IC could not therefore have been granted. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that subsidy by way of customs duty draw back could not be treated as a profit derived from the industrial undertaking. We have not been impressed by the submissions advanced by Mr. Bandhyopadhyay. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) was in relation to the subsidy arising out of customs dra…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2553/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…mitted that it is not a profit derived from the undertaking. The benefit under section 80IC could not therefore have been granted. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that subsidy by way of customs duty draw back could not be treated as a profit derived from the industrial undertaking. We have not been impressed by the submissions advanced by Mr. Bandhyopadhyay. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) was in relation to the subsidy arising out of customs dra…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…mitted that it is not a profit derived from the undertaking. The benefit under section 80IC could not therefore have been granted. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that subsidy by way of customs duty draw back could not be treated as a profit derived from the industrial undertaking. We have not been impressed by the submissions advanced by Mr. Bandhyopadhyay. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) was in relation to the subsidy arising out of customs dra…

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2440/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Somogyan Pal, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 80HSection 80M

…mitted that it is not a profit derived from the undertaking. The benefit under section 80IC could not therefore have been granted. He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein it was held that subsidy by way of customs duty draw back could not be treated as a profit derived from the industrial undertaking. We have not been impressed by the submissions advanced by Mr. Bandhyopadhyay. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) was in relation to the subsidy arising out of customs dra…

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Rallis India Ltd Vs. DCIT, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/o Kalyaniwalla and Room No. 624, 6th Mistry LLP, 2nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCR2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Jitendra Jain.AR Respondent by : Mr.S.N Kabra. DR Date of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The…

Narayan Industires, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 60(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6153/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 253

…Assessing Officer held that the profits of the industrial undertaking included the amount of duty drawback, which is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Limited317 ITR 218 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 18. Before us, the ld. AR at the outset submitted that no surplus/ profit accrued to the appellant as a result of receipt of the duty drawback since the said amount was received merely as reimbursement of duty paid as part of purchase price of various materials procured for manu…

Axykno Capital Services Ltd, Nagpur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Nagpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale (JCIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…roviso to s. 68 (which creates an obligation on theissuing Co. to explain the source of share capital & premium) hasbeen introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from01.04.2013 and does not have retrospective effect. Prior thereto, as per Lovely Exports 317 ITR 218 (SC), if the A0 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 12 ITA 178/NAG/ 2017 AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD VS DC…