“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

Magnates Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 to 2014-

ITA 1988/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 153CSection 80I

ACIT Vs. Om Constructions [ITA No. 6234/Mum/2012, dated 09.01.2015] 12% of the cash receipts from sale of flats was accepted as profit element liable to tax. Similarly, in ACIT Vs. M/s Sahakar Developers [ITA No. 6235/Mum/2012, dated 30.01.2017] 17% of the cash receipts were accepted as profit element liable ... issue of computation of profit element. The CIT(A) has concluded that 45% of the on-money receipts are the profit element liable to tax in the hands of the Assessee. The relevant extract of the decision of CIT(A) reads as under: “33. In the present case, the appellant

Magnates Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 to 2014-

ITA 1987/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm)

Section 153CSection 80I

ITO (E), Ward- 2(3), New Delhi vs. The Managing Committee of Shivala Apa Gangadhar, Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 226/Del/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer (E) The Managing बनाम Committee Of Shivala Vs. Ward : 2 (3) Apa Gangadhar, Near Red Fort, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. Pan No. Aaatt7829A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, Adv

Section 11(1)(d)

trust for carrying on its charitable or religious activities, then, such an income falls under section 11(1)(d) and is not liable to tax. Therefore, it is not necessary that a voluntary contribution should be made with a specific direction to treat it as corpus. If the intention ... religious activities of the institute/corpus of the trust, for which section ll(l)(d) is attracted and the said income is not liable for tax under the Act. [Para 15] ITA. No. 226/Del/2018 ..... They have denied the benefit under section 11(1)(d) on the assumption that the amount

M/S. Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

Appeal are allowed

ITA 308/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 234B

correctly invoked the provisions of section 56 of the I.T.Act, 1961 and included the same in the total income of the appellant liable to tax in concerned assessment year. I therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. A.O. and the same calls for no interference from

Emvee Shah Real Estates Private Limited (Formerly Known As Emvee Shah Holdings Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle- 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 805/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

section 2(14) of the Act and therefore the gain or receipt in lieu of the „right to sue‟ cannot be made liable to tax as a capital gain. Accordingly, it was submitted that the receipt of Rs.135 crore in lieu of the „right to sue‟ that is withdrawal

Pratibha Mahendra Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle- 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 804/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

Shirin Mahendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 803/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

Mahendra Corporation, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals being ITAs no

ITA 802/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 250

Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4582/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4582/Del/2018 , A.Y. 2012-13 Jaypee Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Erstwhile Known As Jaypee Infra Circle-13(2), Ventures) New Delhi (A Private Company With Unlimited Liability) Sector 128, Noida- 201304, Up Pan : Aaccj5628G Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

section 14A r w Rule 8D(2)(ii) on interest which is directly attributable to investments in foreign subsidiary, income where from is liable to tax and is not exempt. Assessee claims issue is directly covered in assessee’s favour by decisions of jurisdictional Hon’ble Delhi High Court ... held that the amount of interest having direct nexus with investments in foreign subsidiaries is not disallowable as dividend received there from is liable to tax. As the ground itself is erroneous and des not lie against the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5.1 In this regard

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jaypee Infra Ventures, Noida

Accordingly these grounds in hand deserve to be allowed with a direction to the Ld

ITA 4435/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

ITA 1952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011-12 owing to CBDT Circular No. 528 of 1988 income from Profit on Sale/Redemption of Investments is not liable to tax. This decision has thereafter been followed by Tribunal in the case for assessee for years upto AY 2010-11. Last appellate order

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1750/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

ACIT, Circle 8(2), New Delhi vs. Etawah Chakeri (Kanpur) Highway Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9200/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. Etawah Chakeri (Kanpur) Circle – 8(2), Highway Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Ose Commercial Block, Asset 5B, Aerocity, Hospitality, District, Igi Pan No. Aacce 8963 D Airport, New Delhi – 110 037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. V. S. R. Krishna, C.A. Revenue By Shri Javed Akhter, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2023

Section 143(3)

seen on commercial principles. No hypothetical income can be taxed. ii) Amount/Grant/Capital Subsidy received for capital asset is a capital receipt not liable for tax. iii) If there is diversion of receipt to other party by overriding obligation on the assessee, the same cannot be taxed in assessee's hands ... determined by the purpose test. 5 v) Receipts during Project Construction and inextricably linked to the project under construction are capital receipts not liable to tax and need to be reduced from the project cost. vi) As per correct accounting principles, as there was no revenue during construction/development period

Ajay Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mumbai

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

ITA 473/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amit BothraFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 250

Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as under the circumstances of the case in accepting the long-term capital gain liable to tax wrongly determined by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,78,60,000/- as against Rs. 97.55,788/- as disclosed by your Appellant. 4. THAT

Amarshi Avchar Gala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 150/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Surji ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 50C

sale consideration stated in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. On the basis of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that income liable to tax had escaped assessment. On the strength of the aforesaid, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the reassessment proceedings were

Pooja Metal Processors Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1301/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Pooja Metal Processors Pvt Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.89, Cpc, Dlf Industrial Estate Phase I, Bangalore. Anangpur, Faridabad – 121 003. Pan: Aaacp9084G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1301/Del/2021 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034567083(1) Dated 02.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 17.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (Pf/Esi) Which Was Not Deposited Till The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts, But, Were Duly Remitted To The Account Of The Government On Or Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139 (1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32Section 43

gain arising on account of sale of fixed assets in the sum of Rs.3,87,151/- in the books, would not be liable to tax. This plea was not accepted by the ld. AO and by the ld.CIT(A) and, accordingly, it had resulted in an addition of Rs.3

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unaccounted money which is nothing but an accommodation Therefore the same is treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and is liable to taxed in the hands of the assessee. In view of the above, the provision of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts

Govindbhai L. Kakadia, Mumbai vs. JCIT-19(2), Mumbai

ITA 310/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69A

tax in the Assessment Year 2006- 07. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Appellant that INR 1,00,000/- is not liable to tax in the Assessment Year 2006-07 However, same income cannot be brought to tax twice in the hands of the Appellant. Since

Shri Gulamhusen Remanbhai Selat, Veraval (Gir Somnath) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Veraval

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

ITA 309/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

notices issued u/s. 142(1) on 22.09.2020 & 17.08.2021. The assessee replied that his income has not exceeding the minimum amount and therefore not liable to tax. He did not received the so called notices, so he could not reply to the above notices. In fact as against the exparte assessment

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Morbi Circle, Morbi vs. M/S. Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed and the CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 31/Rjt/2018 With Co No.17/Rjt/2018 वष"/Asstt. Years: 2014-2015 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" D.C.I.T., M/S Zealtop Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi Circle, Vs. Survey No.596, 8/A, Morbi. National Highway, Old Ghuma Road, Morbi-2. Pan: Aaacz3126B

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 131Section 143(3)

Thus, the AO was of the view that the assessee by way of under invoicing the sales is suppressing the actual profit liable to tax. The basis of the AO for the allegation was the investigation report for search and seizure operation carried out on various Aangadia/Shroff including National Shroff