← All Phrases

“liable to tax”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(29A)2,645 judgments

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1821/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

other income aggregating to ₹19,20,74,941/- is not eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and liable to tax as income from other sources. The AO thereafter computed relatable expenses on a proportionate basis, at ₹16,03,77,515/- only and made addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7843/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7839/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5519/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5518/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5516/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F' : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH 'F': NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

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

ITA 4154/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

Therefore, firstly it will have to be seen whether the payment of Rs.\n5,81,06,542/- to Croydon data center is liable to tax as \"royalty\" or not. The\nA.O. has drawn a parallel between the case of the appellant and the ruling ... income was actually received in\nIndia. The Assessing Officer held in the case of M/s. Asia SAT that its income\nwas liable to tax in India, because the ultimate territory of commercial\nexploitation was India only. The Hon'ble Tribunal analysed in great detail the\nmeaning of the term \"process

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

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

ITA 4090/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37(1)Section 44C

Therefore, firstly it will have to be seen whether the payment of Rs.\n5,81,06,542/- to Croydon data center is liable to tax as \"royalty\" or not. The\nA.O. has drawn a parallel between the case of the appellant and the ruling ... income was actually received in\nIndia. The Assessing Officer held in the case of M/s. Asia SAT that its income\nwas liable to tax in India, because the ultimate territory of commercial\nexploitation was India only. The Hon'ble Tribunal analysed in great detail the\nmeaning of the term \"process

DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 2166/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 14ASection 80Section 92C

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) inadvertently suo-moto offered to tax by the assessee instead of treating the same as Capital receipts not liable to tax-20,76,97,397/- 10. That the Id. DRP/AO has erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee during the course of assessment proceedings treating the sale proceeds of renewable energy certificates (RECs) amounting to 220,76,97.397/-not liable to tax being capital receipts in nature. 11. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. DRP and consequently the Ld. AO have erred in law by not entertaining

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Number 4591 and 4592/Mum/2016 vide order dated 05.10.2017 wherein Mumbai ITAT held that distribution out of corpus funds is a capital receipt not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. The reference to Special Bench of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case clearly demonstrates that ... account of the amount received by the assessee from Mimosa Trust, which according to the Assessing Officer was liable to tax and Ajay Mayor vs. DCIT Asst. Year –2013-14 - 6– therefore the assessee was alleged to have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. After carefully examining

MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 8938/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

action of the Id. AO in holding appellant is a 'state' under Article 289 of the Constitution of India and therefore, not liable to tax under Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred

MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 8937/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

action of the Id. AO in holding appellant is a 'state' under Article 289 of the Constitution of India and therefore, not liable to tax under Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred

MAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEM. CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 8936/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

action of the Id. AO in holding appellant is a 'state' under Article 289 of the Constitution of India and therefore, not liable to tax under Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred

GURGAON ONE RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD 1(5),GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

interest of Rs.7,35,719/- earned from bank deposits out of funds accumulated in sinking fund meant for capital expenditure constitutes capital receipts liable to tax under the I.T Act, 1961 [Act), thus assessee- appellant prays that the interest earned from bank deposits out of sinking fund may kindly ... held as capital receipt not liable to tax under the Act. (Not pressed) 4. That on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred and failed to appreciate that the assessee-appellant is a Resident Welfare Association [RWA] and functioning under

Showing 1–20 of 2,645 · Page 1 of 133

...