← All Phrases

“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
84
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
81
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
77
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
77
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

Edenred Sa, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

received on account of Management Service Fees and Technology and Strategic Information Systems (‘TSIS‘) Service Fees as not liable to tax in India as per Article 13 read with the Protocol to the India France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA‘) along with Article 13 of the India USA DTAA ... management service fees amounting to Rs. 4,35,95,413 from its Indian group companies. The assessee claimed that the same is not liable to tax in India as per Article 13 read with the Protocol to the India France DTAA along with Article 12 of India Finland DTAA. Further

General Electric Company, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 82/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

outside India. As such, no income accrued or arose in India in respect of such off-shore supply of equipment parts which was liable to tax under section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) or deemed to accrue or arise under section 9 of the Act. Further ... India so as to constitute a Permanent Establishment within the meaning of Article 5 of the Tax Treat and consequently, was not liable to tax in India in respect of the offshore supplies under the Tax Treaty. The assessment proceedings was completed vide order dated 29 January 2004 under section

DDIT (It) 3(1), Mumbai vs. General Electric Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is allowed and the appeal of revenue for A

ITA 432/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M Balaganeshm/S. General Electric Company, C/O Kpmg, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011 Pan Aaacg5399M …Appellant. Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Tax, (International Taxation)-3(1), Room No.136, 1St Floor, Scindia House, N M Road Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038. ….Respondent. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3(1), Mumbai-400 038 ….Appellant. Vs. M/S. General Electric Company, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai. ….Respondent. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Shri Abhishek Tilak & Shri Ameya Pany. Revenue By : Ms. Surabi Sharma, Cit D.R. Shri Sunil Umap, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabi Sharma, CIT
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 5Section 9

outside India. As such, no income accrued or arose in India in respect of such off-shore supply of equipment parts which was liable to tax under section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) or deemed to accrue or arise under section 9 of the Act. Further ... India so as to constitute a Permanent Establishment within the meaning of Article 5 of the Tax Treat and consequently, was not liable to tax in India in respect of the offshore supplies under the Tax Treaty. The assessment proceedings was completed vide order dated 29 January 2004 under section

Praveen Sambhaji Raorane, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane

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

ITA 2589/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90Section 91

period of secondment, he earned salary income from foreign country and also paid taxes there. Accordingly, being the resident of India, he is liable to tax in the capacity of ‘resident’ in accordance of the provisions of the Act. The foreign salary income also would be liable to tax

Jenendra Kumar Jain, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officers, (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 415/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Laskar, DR
Section 770

residence basis but on the basis of source. Article 4(1)(a) of DTAA clearly excludes a person who is liable to tax in USA in respect only on income from the sources in USA from the definition of ‘resident’ who is otherwise liable to be taxed by reason

Norma Lydia Ayyash, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2760/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenorma Lydia Ayyash Vs. Ito – 24(3)(2) 15, Goundowli, Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, East, Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400005. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Akipa4487B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Ms.Mansi Ayachit.Ar Revenue By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.Mansi Ayachit.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Richa Gulati.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 195

life insurance premium was paid out of income of the appellant earned and received outside India and therefore, the same is not liable to tax in India; 3. The appellant prays that the addition made to income being unwarranted, be kindly deleted; D) Addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- being

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DDIT It-3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 1510/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2003-2004
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Business Income‟. Further, the revenues were also not covered by any other Article of the DTAA, and therefore, such revenues were not liable to tax in India. Assessment Proceedings 3.7 The Assessing Officer framed assessment of GCC under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated, 31.03.2005, at income ... India as per the provisions of the Act, would also not be covered by Article 12(2) of DTAA, and therefore, be liable to tax at normal rates as per the provisions of the Act in India. This would clearly be an anomalous situation. 5.16. We are also not inclined

M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (Int. Taxation) - 3(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3135/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Business Income‟. Further, the revenues were also not covered by any other Article of the DTAA, and therefore, such revenues were not liable to tax in India. Assessment Proceedings 3.7 The Assessing Officer framed assessment of GCC under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated, 31.03.2005, at income ... India as per the provisions of the Act, would also not be covered by Article 12(2) of DTAA, and therefore, be liable to tax at normal rates as per the provisions of the Act in India. This would clearly be an anomalous situation. 5.16. We are also not inclined

ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corporation Pte. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, and cross-objection by the Assessee are disposed off as infructuous

ITA 3130/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2002-2003
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Business Income‟. Further, the revenues were also not covered by any other Article of the DTAA, and therefore, such revenues were not liable to tax in India. Assessment Proceedings 3.7 The Assessing Officer framed assessment of GCC under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated, 31.03.2005, at income ... India as per the provisions of the Act, would also not be covered by Article 12(2) of DTAA, and therefore, be liable to tax at normal rates as per the provisions of the Act in India. This would clearly be an anomalous situation. 5.16. We are also not inclined

Red Monster Mobile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400021 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the 21 Red Monster Mobile Private Limited

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Allsec Technologies Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 421/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 195(1)Section 40

from the AO and unless, the assessee obtained a Certificate, it cannot be argued that payment made to non-residents are not liable to tax in India and consequently, no disallowances can be made u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the Ld.DR further submitted that there is no error

Mora] Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 155/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. Dclt Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 154/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Moraj Finanz Corporation, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 153/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 22

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 4Th Floor, Central Buidling Road, Mumbai-400020. No.3, Master Boman Lane, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd4304P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai Dated 04.10.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Sole Issue Is Regarding The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao To The Tune Of Rs.5,58,52,480/- Which Assessee Claimed To Be Incentive In Nature Of Capital [Mega Project Incentive In The Form Of Sales Tax Incentive Etc.)] Whereas According To The Ao It Was Revenue In Nature. Therefore, Deduction Claimed By Assessee Was Not Allowed By The Ao. & Thereafter He Also Made Adjustment Of Book Profit Made By The Ao U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Disallowed The Same & Thus Assessed The Book Profit At 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,06,95,298/-. Against The Action Of The Ao, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Was Pleased To Delete The Same. Aggrieved, By The Aforesaid Action Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Revenue Is Before Us.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 115Section 115J

verdict that the incentive given for development of backward area by establishing new industries would be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. The notional amount of sales tax subsidy was held as capital receipt not chargeable to tax. 14. In respect of subsidy in the shape

Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited (in Liquidation), Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 509/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.509/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2015-16) Barclays Capital Mauritius Limited. (In Liquidation) C/O. Srbc & Associates Llp 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028 Pan: Aaccb-4438-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)-1(2)(1),Mumbai, 18Th Floor, Room No.1811, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2022 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2 2. Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That She Is Not Pressing Ground No.1 Of Appeal Challenging Reassessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin AmalsadvalaFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 147

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ आई ”, मुंबई "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी गगन गोयल, लेखा

Tech Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result we are not inclined to interfere in the order of Ld

ITA 6256/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyaltech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-2(3), Room No. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Acit Circle-2(3)(1), Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. Tech Mahindra Limited, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacm3484F ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh Kapadia Respondent/Revenue By : Sh. K.C. Kanojia- Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sh. J.D. Mistri / Sh. Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Sh. K.C. Kanojia- CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 14ASection 234BSection 250Section 32(1)

Satyam acquisition is excluded, then the free reserves of the appellant company are sufficient to meet the remaining amount invested in investments liable to tax exempt income. The company has also submitted that there are investments in foreign companies whose dividend is taxable in India and hence these investments should

Tyco Fire and Security India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 270/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 716/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms. Nilu Jaggi, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155J

aforesaid facts, the exemption availed of by the appellant's eligible units under the said notification, was a capital receipt not liable to tax. In the case of DCIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.(88 ITD 273) (Mumbai SB), the Hon'ble ITAT observed that the thrust of the Maharashtra Scheme

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

issue involved therein on merits is as to whether the receipt of compensation for shortfall in guaranteed performance from Suzlon Energy Ltd is liable to tax in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find