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

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt.Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2588 & 2589/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Civil Engineering Vs. Acit (Central) Circle, Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur. 1148 E, Sykes Extension, Kolhapur- 416001. Pan : Aaacl5602N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Shivraj B Morey Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 09.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Two Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.2588/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B Morey
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…the case, the decision of the High Court was affirmed and the appeal was to be dismissed. [Para 8].” 11. Again this expression has been interpreted in the context of provisions of section 80IA by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “Scheme of sections 80-IA and 80-IB Analysing Chapter VI-A, one may find that sections 80-IB and 80-IA are the Codes by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. It is evident that section 80-IB provides for allowing of deduction in respect of profits an…

Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt.Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 2588/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2588 & 2589/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Civil Engineering Vs. Acit (Central) Circle, Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur. 1148 E, Sykes Extension, Kolhapur- 416001. Pan : Aaacl5602N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Shivraj B Morey Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 09.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Two Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.2588/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B Morey
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 80I

…the case, the decision of the High Court was affirmed and the appeal was to be dismissed. [Para 8].” 11. Again this expression has been interpreted in the context of provisions of section 80IA by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “Scheme of sections 80-IA and 80-IB Analysing Chapter VI-A, one may find that sections 80-IB and 80-IA are the Codes by themselves as they contain both substantive as well as procedural provisions. It is evident that section 80-IB provides for allowing of deduction in respect of profits an…

Aqualfil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 950/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 80I

….4 As regards the interest and other income received, by appellant's own admission Rs. 2,05,558/~ was included in the deduction claimed u/s. 801 A (out of the total interest and other income of Rs. 54,32,913/-). As held in the cases of Liberty India v/s. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 494), interest and other income cannot be said to have been 'derived from' the business and is not entitled to deduction u/s. 801 A. A. O. is directed to re- compute the deduction allowable u/s.80IA by excluding the said-amount of interest and other income included by the appellant in the deduction claimed…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 542/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 80I

….4 As regards the interest and other income received, by appellant's own admission Rs. 2,05,558/~ was included in the deduction claimed u/s. 801 A (out of the total interest and other income of Rs. 54,32,913/-). As held in the cases of Liberty India v/s. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 494), interest and other income cannot be said to have been 'derived from' the business and is not entitled to deduction u/s. 801 A. A. O. is directed to re- compute the deduction allowable u/s.80IA by excluding the said-amount of interest and other income included by the appellant in the deduction claimed…

Aqualfil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 448/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Smt. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R
Section 250(6)Section 80I

….4 As regards the interest and other income received, by appellant's own admission Rs. 2,05,558/~ was included in the deduction claimed u/s. 801 A (out of the total interest and other income of Rs. 54,32,913/-). As held in the cases of Liberty India v/s. CIT (317 ITR 218) and Nahar Exports Ltd. Vs. CIT (288 ITR 494), interest and other income cannot be said to have been 'derived from' the business and is not entitled to deduction u/s. 801 A. A. O. is directed to re- compute the deduction allowable u/s.80IA by excluding the said-amount of interest and other income included by the appellant in the deduction claimed…

Ramniklal Gordhandas Kotecha, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 49/RJT/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT/DR
Section 10ASection 263

…e Ld. CIT further noted that from the records that on account of the same the assessee was erroneously granted deduction u/s. 10AA on account of: (a) export incentive of Rs. 34,50,931/- which as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Liberty India Ltd. 317 ITR 218 (SC) did not constitute income derived from export so as to be eligible to deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act. (b) on domestic sales made by the assessee within SEZ of Rs. 396.22 lakhs which was not eligible to deduction since as per law, the assessee was eligible to deduction only on profit earned from export sales. 3. Accordingly show cause notice…

Unipatch Rubber Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 7670/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 80I

…or things. AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Thus, the profits and gains allowable as deduction under section 80IC of the Act must have a direct and proximate nexus with the manufacture/production of articles or things. 8. In case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating identical view has observed that the income qualifying for deduction must have a first degree relationship with the eligible business. In the facts of the present appeal, admittedly, the interest income which the assessee has claimed as deduction under section 80IC of the Act was earned on fixed depos…

Unipatch Rubber Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 7669/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 80I

…or things. AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Thus, the profits and gains allowable as deduction under section 80IC of the Act must have a direct and proximate nexus with the manufacture/production of articles or things. 8. In case of Liberty India Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while reiterating identical view has observed that the income qualifying for deduction must have a first degree relationship with the eligible business. In the facts of the present appeal, admittedly, the interest income which the assessee has claimed as deduction under section 80IC of the Act was earned on fixed depos…

Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/CHNY/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1320/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S.Sun Direct Tv Private Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, 73, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non-Corporate Circle-20, Mrc Nagar, Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Aaics 7671L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CITFor Respondent: 15.03.2022
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…Court in the case of Lovely Exports. Now the learned Principal CIT wants to extend the applicability of the provisions of sec.68 to the share capital (subscription) also, in complete disregard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports — 317 ITR 218. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Principal CIT failed to understand that the entire re-assessment of share premium from the foreign entity under FDI was assessed that too on a protective basis solely because of the allegations received from the CBI after a charge sheet filed by it in a Special Court and that too in an altogether in…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 153/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 80l

…1 M/s. La Opala Rg. Ltd., AY 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 153/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. La Opala Rg. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAACL5569J) Circle-11(1), Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 29.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 For the Appellant Shri Punit Agrawal & Sm. Khushaboo Rai, ARs. For the Respondent Shri Amol Kamot, CIT, DR ORDER Per Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member : This is an appeal preferred by the assessee again…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…s whether the identity of the assessee is proved or not. In the case of share capital, if the identity is proved, no addition can be made u/s.68 of the Act. We draw support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 218. We, therefore do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground No.1 is accordingly dismissed." (iv) In the case of Green Infra Ltd vs. ITO reported in 38 taxmann.com 253 (Mum-ITAT) dated 23/8/2013, Hon'ble Mumbai IT AT decided that: "During previous year ending on 31-3-2009, it had collected share premium on allotme…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…es Ltd (supra) held in para thus: “In the decision reported in (2012) 340 ITR 477 (Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Asst. CIT), this Court, while dealing with the benefit under Chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act, placed reliance on the decision reported in (2009) 317 ITR 218 (SC) ( Liberty India V. CIT), wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 801, 80IA 80IB of the Income Tax Act and held that Chapter VI-A provides for incentives in the form of tax deductions essentially belong to the category of "profit-linked incentives". This Court also placed reliance on the decision reported in (2004) 271 ITR 3…

M/S. Arman Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr. CIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 315/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…und 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…

M/S Goodpoint Stockist Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 263/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Shrigirishagrawal, Am]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 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…

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

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR
Section 41Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM Dy. Commissioner of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACT4059M Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR Respondent by : Shri Milind Chavan, DR Date of hearing: 20.12.2021 Date of pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is recalled by order of the coordinate bench in Miscellaneous Application number 136/M/2021 in ITA number 2439/M/2011 for…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 636/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

…ver, MAT credit is held not to be eligible for deduction u/s. 80lA as it is not directly linked to the eligible business but only comes into operation due to statutory provision. 5.14.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Incometax (317 ITR 218) (SC) (2009) held that benefits accrued on account of statutory provisions in Customs Act / Schemes framed by the Government are not so derived from industrial undertakings and do not form part of net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 801A. Therefore, the MAT credit being a credit arrived due to the statutory p…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 635/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

…ver, MAT credit is held not to be eligible for deduction u/s. 80lA as it is not directly linked to the eligible business but only comes into operation due to statutory provision. 5.14.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Incometax (317 ITR 218) (SC) (2009) held that benefits accrued on account of statutory provisions in Customs Act / Schemes framed by the Government are not so derived from industrial undertakings and do not form part of net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 801A. Therefore, the MAT credit being a credit arrived due to the statutory p…

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 609/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

…ver, MAT credit is held not to be eligible for deduction u/s. 80lA as it is not directly linked to the eligible business but only comes into operation due to statutory provision. 5.14.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Incometax (317 ITR 218) (SC) (2009) held that benefits accrued on account of statutory provisions in Customs Act / Schemes framed by the Government are not so derived from industrial undertakings and do not form part of net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 801A. Therefore, the MAT credit being a credit arrived due to the statutory p…

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 608/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 80Section 80I

…ver, MAT credit is held not to be eligible for deduction u/s. 80lA as it is not directly linked to the eligible business but only comes into operation due to statutory provision. 5.14.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India vs. Commissioner of Incometax (317 ITR 218) (SC) (2009) held that benefits accrued on account of statutory provisions in Customs Act / Schemes framed by the Government are not so derived from industrial undertakings and do not form part of net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for the purpose of section 801A. Therefore, the MAT credit being a credit arrived due to the statutory p…

M/S Evan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. Pr, C.I.T.-4, Kolkata

ITA 235/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 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…