“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

The DDIT (I.T) 2(1) vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8463/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

license agreement respectively were stated to be qualified as royalty under article 13 of the India United Kingdom treaty and is therefore liable to tax at the rate of 15% on gross basis. The entire tax liability on the product distribution fees and the license fees was discharged ... article 5 of the India UK treaty. Therefore in the return of income they assessee claimed that the distribution fee was not liable to tax in India as per the India United Kingdom treaty. With respect to the income earned of Rs 1,93,56,225 and from ANI media

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy DIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 8348/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5228/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT (I.Taxation) Range 2, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 5092/MUM/2004[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year 2000 – 01

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Umap, DR

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

prove, satisfactorily, the nature and source of these entries and to show that they do not constitute a part of income liable to tax. There can also be no doubt that the onus is always shifting and oscillates and this burden on the assessee can shift on to the Revenue

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32ASection 801ASection 80I

Assessee that INR 6,38,56,961/- received on sale of carbon credits was in the nature of capital receipts and therefore, not liable to tax. Being aggrieved the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal before us. 10.1. Both the sides agreed that identical issue was decided in favour

Serco India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1432/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

practices and therefore, the amount reimbursed by the Assessee to overseas companies towards salaries of seconded employees amounted to „fee for technical services‟ liable to tax in India. Accordingly, the Assessee was required to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act on this amount. Whereas the Assessee

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr

Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much ... apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon’ble Apex Court

M/S. Somaiya Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As the Godavari Sugar Mills P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5748/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Godavari Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 45-47, Somaiya Bhavan Income Tax - 2(1) Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Room No. 561, Aayakar Bhavan Pan – Aaact5004A M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Vipul Doshi & Dinkle Haria Respondent By: Shri Rm K. Kedia, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Doshi & Dinkle HariaFor Respondent: Shri Rm K. Kedia, Sr. D.R

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)

carbon credits/certified emission reduction treated as taxable income. The claim of the assessee is that the same is a capital receipt and not liable to tax under the provisions of the income tax act, under the normal computation of income as well as under the book profit computation ... Godavari Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. under section 115JB of the act as the value of carbon credit is not liable to tax. It is further the claim of the assessee that sum of ₹ 847.37 lakhs is the certified emission reduction credit available to the assessee pertained to the assessment year

DCIT-CC 5(2), Central Range 5, Mumbai vs. M/S Jet Privilege Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 652/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

liability to tax upon income. It does not provide that whatever is received by a person can be regarded as his income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the Department to prove that