“liable to tax”

Biswajit Bose, New Panvel vs. Pr CIT -1, Thane

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and order of Ld

Bench: Shree Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbiswajit Bose B103, Balaji Niwas, Plot No-107-108, Sector-8, New Panvel, Panvel-410206 Pan No. Acxpb9332K ....Appellant Pr Cit-1 Thane Room No-7, 6The Floor, B Wing, Ashar It Park, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane West, Mumbai-400604 ...Respondent

introduction of the section is clarificatory in nature. If we consider the first preposition than the transaction itself was not liable to tax and even if we consider the second preposition, in that case also it can be reasonably assumed that the position of law was not clear before this

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

amalgamating company was lost and it was no longer in existence and therefore, the assessee-company was a different entity not liable to tax on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 58,735. On the Department's application, the Tribunal referred the matter to High Court.  The High Court answered

Hampi Expressways Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1(1)(2), Mumbai

credit of tax deducted at source. 9.4. In the case of Escorts Limited (supra), the assessee had claimed that the income was not liable to tax and therefore, had not disclosed the same in the return of income. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to claim credit of tax deducted ... Energy Ltd. (supra). However, in the appeal before us, it is not the case of the Appellant that the contract receipts were not liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant. ITA. No. 895/Mum/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 9.5. In the case of Relcom (supra), the Ho‟ble Delhi

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

section required tax to be deducted only if income was chargeable to taxin India.  That the payment to Visa and MasterCard being not liable to tax in India the appellant had no legal obligation to withhold tax. 4. Adjustment to Book-Profit u/s 115JA- Provision for bad and doubtful debts ... India-USA tax treaty"). As per the same, it has been held that the fees received by MasterCard and VISA are liable to tax in India on net basis 17 Standard Chartered Bank in India. MasterCard and VISA also accepted under MAP that they have permanent establishment(s) in India

Ntt Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (It)2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountnat Member & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

DTAA. As per the assessee, the recovery of expenses was on cost to cost basis without any income element and hence, not liable to tax. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee was providing management services involving operational budgeting, sales forecasting, information technology support, cash

Hatkesh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shripavankumargadale, Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhhatkesh Co-Operative Vs. Income Tax Officer-25 Housing Society Ltd. (2) (4) 2Nd Floor, 51, Jain Co- Kautilyabhavan, Op Hsgsoc, N.S. Road Bandrakurla Complex, 11, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Bandra East Parle (W) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400049 Pan No.Aaalh0017Q Appellant Respondent

received by the assesse of Rs.90,91,000/- is treated as 6 Hatkesh co-operative Housing Society Ltd Mumbai. revenue receipt and is liable to tax. Similarly, that the AO has made an addition of TDR premium of Rs.38,10,444/- and the AO also made addition of excess provision

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ganga Developers, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shripavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit 27(1) R No.406, 4Th Floor, Tower M/S Ganga Developers Plot No. 219, Alal Asia, No.6, 11Th Road, Chembur, Vashi Railway Stn Complex, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 071 Mumbai-400 703 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaafg 8230 C Assessee By : Shri J.P. Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Jasbir Chouhan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022

concerning section 10(37) of the Act. He has also concluded M/s Ganga Developers; A.Y. 17–18 that the circular only covers income liable to tax as capital gains. However, it is noted that neither the subject of the Circular nor its contents indicate any such restriction. The subject ... similar decision has been taken by ITAT, Chennai in dated 28.1.2021 wherein the issue was whether interest paid on delayed compensation was liable to tax under section 56 as income from other sources or it was to be treated as part of the compensation exempt from tax in light

ACIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Cineline India Ltd(Earlier Known As Clinemax India Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Without Filing Revised Return. Hence, In The First Round, The Said Issue Was Restored Back By The Tribunal To The File Of The Assessing Officer. In The Set Aside Proceedings Also, The Assessing Officer Did Not Accept The Contentions Of The Assessee & Accordingly Assessed Entertainment Tax Subsidy As Revenue Receipt Taxable In The Hands Of The Assessee.

reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in treating the impugned amount as capital receipt and the same not liable to tax. Accordingly, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) on this count is upheld. Similar decision on this issue was taken by the Tribunal ... justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of Ld.CIT(A) in treating the impugned amount as capital receipt and the same not liable to tax. Accordingly, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) on this count is upheld.” 6.5 Similar issue has been taken by the Hon'ble ITAT

Swiber Offshore Construction Pte. Ltd. (Judicial Managers Appointed), Mumbai vs. Asst Clt (It) Cirlce- 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

after accrual, is of no consequence. The material thing is the time of its accrual. Once an income has accrued, it is liable to taxed, notwithstanding the fact that it was not received during the year. In the same manner, if some amount has been received, which does not represent ... accrual of income". Rather the former supplements the latter so as to give a true colour and meaning to the definition of "income" liable to tax.”(Emphasis Supplied) 15. We note that it is admitted position that amount of INR.1,05,45,800/- was not paid to the Appellant during

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Exxon Mobile Company Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400022

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross-

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Exxon Mobile Company Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Aayakar Road No. 8, Sion (East), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 113/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 1283/Mum/2022) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Exxon Mobile Company Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Office Of The Asstt. Kalpataru Point, Plot No. 107, Road Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 8, Sion (East), 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, Mumbai-400020. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 3157 H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Mr. Dhiraj Jain Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

profit element or expenses incurred and it does not have any profit element or mark up and therefore the same was not liable to tax. mark up and therefore the same was not liable to tax. mark up and therefore the same was not liable to tax. 2. The learned

Serenity Traders Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A.O) 14(3) (2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

account, so that any sale of the goods in that year would result in the entire sale price being treated as profit liable to tax, clearly an advantage to the revenue. Even apart from that, it is settled law that the assessee has a right to value his closing stock

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. The ACIT(Exemption) Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

view of provision of section 13(8) of the Act and as a result the entire income of the assessee was liable to tax. 5. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 02/02/2015, for assessment year 2011–12, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue

Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

view of provision of section 13(8) of the Act and as a result the entire income of the assessee was liable to tax. 5. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 02/02/2015, for assessment year 2011–12, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on this issue

ACIT Circle-16 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Sunil Hingorani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Revenue had sought to apply provisions of Section 51 of the Act to treat the said advance as monies forfeited and thereby liable to tax in the hands of the assessee. In this regard, we find that this aspect has already been addressed by the ld.CIT(A) in para

Samir Shantilal Somaiya, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhsamir Shantilal Somaiya Vs. Ito-2(3)(3) Fazalbhoy Building, 45- Aayakar Bhavan, 47, M.G. Road, For, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Amups9442C Appellant .. Respondent

that the said amount of Rs.5,21,938/- is not the agricultural income of your appellant but an agricultural capital receipt and not liable to tax. 3. Your appellants further reserve the rights to add, amend or alter the aforesaid grounds of appeal as they think fit by the appellants