“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

Shinhan Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 6993/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 90

Under section 2(22A), a domestic company is defined as “an Indian company or any other company, which in respect of its income liable to tax in India makes prescribed arrangements for declaration and payment of dividends within India”, and Section 2(23A), a foreign company is defined ... which, inter alia, stated that “Interest paid/ payable by such branch to its head office or any branch located outside India will be liable to tax in India and would be governed by the provisions of Section 115 of the Act. If the double taxation avoidance agreement with the country

Hitesh Chhatwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC -5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed while for the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6418/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Vinay Sinha

Section 54F

well as the assessing authority holding that entire sum of Rs.6 crores would only constitute a capital receipt not liable to tax in year under consideration and that no portion of consideration would be attributable to negative covenant of non compete—Held, activity of non compete was incidental or dominant

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3830/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 263Section 40Section 9

several tribunal decisions and admittedly given that Facebook, Ireland does not have a Permanent Establishment in India, such payments would not be liable to tax in India. Accordingly the view of Pr. CIT that the payments would amount to royalty is bad in law iv. On the facts and circumstances

M/S. Amara Jyothi Education Trust, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 698/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. Page 4 of 13 ITA Nos. 690 & 698/Bang/2017 2. The appellant denies itself liable to taxed over and above the income returned by the appellant of Rs. NIL, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Denial of capital

M/S. Amara Jyothi Education Trust, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 690/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Avana Global Fzco, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) Circle-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1079/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1079/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) Avana Global Fzco, D-301-305, Level 3, Tower Ii, Seawoods Grand Central, Plot No.R1, Sector-40, Nerul Node Seawoodsdarave, Navi Mumbai 400 706. Pan: Aadcb-4021-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation),Circle – 1(1)(2) Mumbai, Room No.528, 5Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Poras Kaka, Sr. Advocate With Shri Divesh Chawla, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/06/2022 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Poras Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Shri Divesh Chawla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan

Section 44B

erred in denying the benefit of Article- 8 of the India and UAE Tax Treaty to theAppellant by holding it liable to tax in India under section 44B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) with respect to its shipping income of Rs.12,39,99,720/- (being

Shri Prabhukumar Aiyappa Kullatira, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 3048/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 5(1)

extracted clauses 3 & 4 of the DTAA and submitted that the assessee though resident of India, he is not liable to tax in respect of the capital gains arising out of sale of shares of the UAE company to the buyers outside India. Section

ITO, (It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2823/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S International Ito(It)-2(2)(2), Reinsurance & R. No. 1725, 17Th Floor, Air Insurance Consultancy India Building, Nariman & Broking Services Pvt. Point, बिधम/ Ltd. Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 15Th Floor, B-Wing, Nirmal Building, 241/242, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaci2859J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.05.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.02.2019 Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-56

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, LdFor Respondent: Shri Atul T. Suraiya, Ld

Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

fact that, here in this case, none of the NRRs have PE in India nor any business connection and therefore, they were not liable to tax in 4 I.T.A. No. 2823/Mum/2019 M/s International Reinsurance and Insurance Consultancy & Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. India; and in support, tax residency certificates, Form

M/S. Essity Hygiene and Health Ab, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, International Taxation-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 778/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.778/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) M/S. Essity Hygiene & Health Ab, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmi Axis, 6Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aatcs-0899-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- (International Taxation)- 4(2)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No.1708, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Jain ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Milind S. Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan

Section 143(3)

this proposition and observed as follows: That leaves us with the last contention as to whether the amounts by way of reimbursement are liable to tax. To answer that issue, we may gainfully refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Industrial Engineering Projects

Late Rehmatunisa A. Sayed Through L/H Salimullah A. Sayed (Son), Mumbai vs. The ITO-34(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1405/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyallate Rehmatunisa A. Vs. The Ito – 34(2)(1) Sayed Through L/H Bandra Kurla Salimullah A. Sayed Complex, C-11 (Son), Bandra(East), C/11/82, Mig Colony, Mumbai- 400051. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Dbpps7580J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kalpesh Turlkar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Kalpesh Turlkar.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234A

erred in confirming the ley of interest u/s 234A and 234B as receipt of Rs. 25,21,508/- was not expected as liable to tax at the time of estimating a income for advance tax u/s 210 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. v. The appellant craves leave

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 147Section 250Section 35

true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions; (2) where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the ITO. This is obviously based on the principle that the taxpayer would ... Underlines supplied) Based on the said decision of the Apex Court, this Court held that: (a) Where in the original assessment, the income liable to tax escapes assessment due to oversight or inadvertence or a mistake committed by Assessment Officer, the jurisdiction to reopen the original assessment vests

Factiva Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

Section 13(3)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and as such income attributable to the consideration received from DJCIPL in India is not liable to tax India. However, declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) in its draft assessment order proceeded to hold that payment made

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1345/BANG/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(It)A Nos. 1344 & 1345/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Madura Coats Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of 7Th Floor, Jupiter Income Tax Prestige Technology (International Park, Vs. Taxation), Outer Ring Road, Circle – 1(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcm8297K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman, Revenue By Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-12, Bangalore For A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18. It Is Submitted That The Issues Alleged By Assessee In Both These Years Are Identical & On Similar Facts. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2.1 Madura Coats Pvt Ltd (Mcpl) Is An Indian Company Carrying On The Business As Manufacturer & Merchant Of Sewing Threads & Other Goods, Possesses The Requisite Expertise & Experience By Virtue Of Having Several Qualified Personnel In Its Employment. During The Course Of Verification Conducted Us

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

support before the Ld.AO. The assessee placed reliance on the following decisions, which held that, reimbursement based on cost sharing agreement is not liable to tax in India: a) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Expeditors International (India) (P) Ltd reported in 24 Taxmann

M/S. Madura Coats Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax., (International Transaction), Circle- 1(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for A

ITA 1344/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 195Section 201(1)

Micro Focus Software Inc. (Earlier Known As Novell Inc.), Usa vs. The Dy CIT (Intl. Taxation)-Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 863/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

these circumstances that it was held that the advertisement revenue received by the Appellant may be from the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment ... only contention advanced and which found favour with the Tribunal was that the advertisement revenue received by the assessee was also income liable to tax in India. The CIT(A) relied upon Circular No. 23 of 1969. That Circular read with Article 7(1) would result in holding that advertisement

M/S Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-3, Bangalore

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR

Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

that the said payment does not quality to be royalty as per Article 12 of India-US treaty and hence it is not liable for tax deduction at source. The AO, however, held that the assessee would be liable to deduct tax at source on the above said payment ... submitted, in terms of DTAAs entered with certain countries, payments received by the nonresidents are in the nature of business income, hence, not liable to tax in India under the respective DTAAs in absence of a fixed place of business or PE in India. Thus, he submitted, there being

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation, Chennai vs. The ACIT (Int. Tax) 2(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pranith Golecha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 234BSection 9

exactly similar issue was decided in favour of the assessee and it was held that receipts towards sale of software products was not liable to tax as royalty. The precise observation of the Tribunal for the A.Y.2011- 12 order dated 28/02/2017 reads as under:- ISSUE NO.1 TO 7:- 4. Issue ... held that receipt to the tune of Rs.26,87,30,378/- on account of the receipt for sale of shrinkwrap software is not liable to tax in India. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to delete the full addition. Accordingly, these 8 ITA No. 7027/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2015-16) Dassault

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

revenue receipt and rejected the contention of the Assessee that the incentive/sales tax subsidy was a capital in nature and was, therefore, not liable to tax. 10.2. Being aggrieved, the Assessee carried this issue in appeal before the CIT(A), who decided the issue in favour of the Assessee holding

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)