“liable to tax”

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

The decision most relied on for liable to tax is DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC (313 ITR 187), cited in 144 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on liable to tax

DIT v. NGC Network Asia LLC

313 ITR 187 · 2009 · High Court

144

citing judgments

Where a duty is cast on the payer to deduct and pay tax at source under Section 195, the payee-assessee cannot be levied interest under Section 234B for failure to pay advance tax if the payer defaults on its TDS obligation. This principle may also extend to interest under Section 234C.

CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.

14 Taxmann 99 · 1983 · High Court

125

citing judgments

Club entrance fees, if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). Furthermore, an order holding a deductor liable for TDS defaults under Section 201 must be preceded by an inquiry into the deductee's actual tax payment.

CIT v. Karnataka Power Corporation

247 ITR 268 · 2001 · Supreme Court

124

citing judgments

Income earned during the project construction stage, which has a direct nexus or is inextricably linked to the project's setting up, constitutes a capital receipt not liable to tax and reduces the project cost.

CIT v. Rasoi Ltd.

335 ITR 438 · 2011 · High Court

107

citing judgments

Sales tax subsidies and Industrial Promotion Assistance received under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme are capital receipts and therefore not liable to tax. The ruling clarifies the inapplicability of the Sahney Steel judgment to such subsidies.

(supra), Rama Bai v. CIT

181 ITR 408 · 1990 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Interest received on delayed payment or enhanced compensation awarded under compulsory acquisition is a revenue receipt and is liable to income tax.

Bank Vs. ACIT (2005) 142 Taxman 98 (Kerala) (v) CIT(TDS) v. Director, DPS

115 ITD 411 · ITAT

citing judgments

The case is an authority regarding the conditions under which an assessee can be held liable, and orders confirmed, under Section 201(1) of the Income-tax Act for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS). It clarifies the circumstances for deeming an assessee to be in default for non-deduction or non-payment of TDS.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers

351 ITR 309 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

A subsidy or incentive provided by the government for meeting capital expenditure, to achieve a national objective or public interest, is a capital receipt and thus not liable to income tax. The nature of the subsidy is determined by applying the 'purpose test'.

CIT v. Wipro Ltd. (

70 Taxmann.com 129 · Reported

citing judgments

Payments are liable for deduction of tax at source when they are in the nature of royalty. The withholding tax liability can be worked out by applying a proportion to the total remittance.

Judgments citing liable to tax

ACIT (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2190/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 195Section 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

read with Article 7 of the relevant tax treaty. In view of the above, the Appellant submits that such charges are not liable to tax in India and, as such, there is no question of deduction of tax at source under section 195 of the Act. In this regard ... respect of Nostro Account Maintenance charges paid / payable to foreign banks and subsequent raising of TDS demand, by holding that the charges are liable to tax in India and consequently, liable for tax deduction u/s 195 of the Act. In the submission, Appellant has submitted that it has not borrowed

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. Dycit (It)Circle-1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 523/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2018-2019

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44B

that the amounts received by the appellant company from the Offshore Supply Contracts are covered by the provisions of section 44BBB and consequently liable to tax in India 3) The learned DCIT/DRP failed to appreciate that the receipts from the Offshore Supply Contracts are not taxable in India ... that the amounts received by the appellant company from the Offshore Supply Contracts are covered by the provisions of section 44BBB and consequently liable to tax in India. 3) The learned DCIT/DRP failed to appreciate that the receipts from the Offshore Supply Contracts are not taxable in India

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)Circle -1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 522/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 44B

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

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

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Hitachi, Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation 2(1) (1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals being ITA no

ITA 2260/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y.: 2018-19] & [A.Y.: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

That the learned ACIT and DRP have grossly erred in law and on facts that consideration for sale of equipment from Japan was liable to tax in India on incorrect appreciation of the provisions of the contract, wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Act and DTAA between India ... following cases where on similar facts, it has been held that consideration for supply of Plant & Equipment, from outside India, was not liable to tax in India: (i) Ishikawajima - Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. - Vs. Director of Income tax, Mumbai (228 ITR 408 SC) (ii) Director of Income Tax, New Delhi

Hitachi, Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle International Taxation.2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals being ITA no

ITA 2259/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y.: 2018-19] & [A.Y.: 2019-20]

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

admittedly, no return of income was filed by him during his stay at Madurai as he had not earned any income liable to tax in that period - From assessment year 2010-11 onwards, assessee had shifted to Shimoga, Karnataka, carrying on business there and returns of income were filed from

M/S. Jai Corp Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1325/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Jai Corp Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax 11 & 12 B Mittal Tower, Free (Cpc) Bangalore Vs. Press Journal Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacj2591A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajesh P Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunny Mathews, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Mathews, AR

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 40Section 438Section 43B

which was reflected under the profit and loss account as other income being in the nature of exempted income and it is not liable to tax and therefore the assessee has not taken under the head income from other sources. Thus the adjustment made by the Ld. CPC need ... circumstance of the case discussed above, we find that the adjustments made are not in the nature in the income which are liable for tax in the hand in the assessee. The assessee cannot be penalized for some bonafide error while filling return of income. It is imperative on part

M/S. Jai Corp Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1324/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Mathews, AR

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 40Section 438Section 43B

DCIT Central Circle-01, Delhi vs. Spicejet Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 881/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 37(1)Section 40

these aircrafts. Alternatively it was also claimed by the learned senior counsel that the payment of supplementary lease rents is also not liable to tax in India as per the provisions of Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Ireland. 11. Per contrary, the learned CIT(DR) Dr. Prabhakant

DCIT Central Circle-01, Delhi vs. Spicejet Ltd., Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 880/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 37(1)Section 40

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

paid by the Appellant. 28. Erred in not appreciating that dividend paid by the Appellant to its Mauritius and Dutch shareholders, is liable to tax as per the beneficial tax rate of 5% and 10% under Article 10(2) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty and India- Netherlands tax treaty

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle, Panaji vs. Canara Bank, Margao

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 77/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan And MS. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

absence of this information, these forms shall be held to be invalid. And the interest paid out bank shall therefore be liable to tax u/s 194A of the Act. ii. Further, the CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the assessee Bank has not complied to the provisions envisaged

Canara Bank, Margao vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle, Panaji

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 54/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan And MS. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

Canara Bank, Panaji Branch, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS, Circle, Panaji

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 53/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan And MS. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

M/S. Gill Rice Mill, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 121/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.121/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 274Section 44A

I.T.A. No.121/Asr/2023 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was liable to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act in the impugned assessment year. The assessee claimed that the audit report was drawn on dated 03.09.2017. But the report was furnished before

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Star Cruise Management Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1296/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(i)

remittances of tickets sold by the Indian company outside India. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Assessee contended that no income was liable to tax in India. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. The Assessing Officer concluded that the Assessee had a business connection in India; and also ... payments in India. Therefore, INR 10,56,50,826/-, being 7.5% of the receipts of INR 140,86,77,681/- from India, were liable to tax in India vide Assessment Order, dated 25/04/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(3) of the Act. On appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Star Cruise Management Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1295/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(i)

Smt. Lalitha Padamchand Kothari, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-25(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1252/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Lalitha Kothari The Ito Ward-25(2)(5), 2/4, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, Western Express Highway, Vile Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Parle East, Near Airport Side Bandra (East) Service Road, Mumbai City, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400099. Pan No. Aacpl 3131 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ritesh JainFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 6Section 68Section 69C

prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these entries and to show that they do not constitute a part of his business income liable to tax. When, however, entries stand not in the assessee's own name, but in the name of third parties, there has been some divergence