← 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

Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan, Thiruvalla vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan .......... Appellant Valuzhathil House, Kozhuvalloor, Thiruvalla [Pan: Akaps3606C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Stephen George, Ar Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 25.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Non-Resident Indian. No Regular Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant. The Dcit (International Taxation) Lkn (Hereinafter Called "The Ao"), Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Term Deposits In Bank & Earned Interest Income Of Deposits, Formed An Opinion That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The 2 Valuzhathil Padmanabhan Sivadasan Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act After Duly Complying The Provisions Of Section 148(A) Of The Act. In Response To The Notice U/S. 148, The Appellant Filed Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 On 30.08.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,44,870/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ao Vide Order Dated 26.05.2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 35,01,948/-. While Doing So, The Ao Brought To Tax The Income Of Salary Of Rs. 32,57,078/-.

For Appellant: Shri Stephen George, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 4(1)(a)

Keshav Mills Ltd. (supra) is that the money brought in India by Non- Resident for investment or for other purpose is not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The question of assessment to income tax arises only when there is no evidence to show that ... received by him in India." 28. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 provides that the Non-Resident is liable to tax in respect of (a) income received or deemed to be received in India and (b) income which accrues or arises or is deemed to be accrued

Lm Wind Power As, Denmark vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

case of CIT vs Toshoku Ltd: 125 ITR 525 (SC). In view of the above, he submitted that sales commission is not liable to tax in India as the Assessee does not have ‘Business Connection’ in India. 14. With regard to Ground No.3.2, assessee does not have Fixed Place ... India accepts the separate entity approach with respect to existence of PE (once established), the attribution of the profit to the PE liable to tax in India, is based on functional analysis, having regard to the functions performed, assets used or risks assumed by the PE. In this regard

Anand Arunraj, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Cirlce-5(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

Land Acquisition Collector created by Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioners, the amount of interest being not liable to tax, the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in deducting the tax at source. 4. The issue is no more res Integra in view

Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi, Malappuram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 774/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi .......... Appellant 4/61, Pudukkudi House, Ponmundam P.O. (Via) Tirur 676106 [Pan: Afepp4646J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Kozhikode ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

supra) is that the money brought in India by Non- 10 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi Resident for investment or for other purpose is not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The question of assessment to income tax arises only when there is no evidence to show ... India." 12 Mohammed Kutty Pudukkudi 28. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 provides that the Non-Resident is liable to tax in respect of (a) income received or deemed to be received in India and (b) income which accrues or arises or is deemed to be accrued

Waterworld Tourism Company Private Limited, Alappuzha vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 726/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Water World Tourism Company Pvt. Ltd. .......... Appellant Room No. 18, Municipal Shopping Centre Zilla Court Ward, Opp. Boat Jetty Thathampally S.O., Alappuzha 688013 [Pan: Aabcm3387L] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1& Tps, Alappuzha ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Thomas Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

Keshav Mills Ltd. (supra) is that the money brought in India by Non- Resident for investment or for other purpose is not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. The question of assessment to income tax arises only when there is no evidence to show that ... received by him in India." 28. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 provides that the Non-Resident is liable to tax in respect of (a) income received or deemed to be received in India and (b) income which accrues or arises or is deemed to be accrued

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2023/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Ito, No.4/76, Sf No.927, Sukkaliyur, Ward-1, Karur-639 003. Karur. [Pan: Ajgpk 4945 H]

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth KumarFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

constitutes "reason to believe". In the case of CIT v. Rinku Chakraborthy 20 taxmann.com 609 (Karnataka) it is held that when an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or mistake committed by the ITO, he has jurisdiction

Oceanic Marketing Agencies India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as

ITA 4777/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

learned CIT(A). the same will not help the Revenue for coming to the conclusion that profit arising on sale of shares was liable to tax as business income. 14. The decision to dispose of investment at a short interval is being taken by the assessee keeping in view

M/S. Oceanic Marketing Agencies India Ltd., Delhi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as

ITA 4542/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

learned CIT(A), the same will not help the Revenue for coming to the conclusion that profit arising on sale of shares was liable to tax as business income. 14. The decision to dispose of investment at a short interval is being taken by the assessee keeping in view

Mrs. Sisily Jose, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1637/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1637/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. V.P. Kuriyachan, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 69A

India shall be computed as if it were income derived from business and 35% of such income shall be deemed to be income liable to tax. 10. The ld.AR also stated that as per Rule 7A submitted as above, mere drying or smoking of rubber sheets for preserving

Bala Devi, Jaipur Rural vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1306/JPR/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1306/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Bala Devi Dhani :Kankaraiwali, Saravatpura Gram: Amer, Via: Kalwad, Tehsil: Amer Jaipur 303 706 (Raj) Vs. बनाम The ITO Ward 7(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: CPCPD 3195 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे/Revenue by: Mrs. Harshi

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder Jangid, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Harshita Choudhary, Addl.CIT (DR)
Section 148

mentioning escaped income whereas there was no such escapement of income, as the appellant only sources of income is agriculture which was not liable to tax. The notice issued u/s 148 no. 44 dt. 23 April 2015/ 24 April 2015 deserves to be quashed in this ground alone

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Delhi vs. ITO, Exemp. Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1798/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1798/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 बनाम Foundation For Universal Income Tax Officer Responsibility Of His Holiness The Vs. (Exemption), Dalai Lama, Ward 1(1), Core-4A, Ugf, India, New Delhi. Habitat Centre, Upper Ground Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaatf0174E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(c)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)

period of accumulation or during the year immediately following the expiry thereof, the amount which has not been so utilised will be liable to tax as income of the previous year immediately following the expiry of the accumulation period." In course of appellate proceedings the appellant has not furnished

Ranjit Singh, Panchkula vs. Deputy Director, CPC Department

ITA 992/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Labh Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No 2, Panchkula

ITA 725/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty

Bhupinder Singh, Ambala vs. Income Tax Officer, W-1, Ambala

ITA 528/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty

Sh. Hakam Singh, Patiala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Patiala

ITA 486/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty

Balbir Singh, Sirsa, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sirsa, Haryana

ITA 483/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty

Bishan Chand, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (5), Chandigarh

ITA 458/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty

Sat Pal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh

ITA 243/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty

Narender Kaur, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Kurukshetra

ITA 165/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty

Balvinder Singh, Fatehabad vs. ITO Ward-1, Fatehabad

ITA 153/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

under Section 34 of the Act is interest paid for the delayed payment of the compensation amount and, therefore, is a revenue receipt liable to tax under the Income Tax Act." 9. This position of law has been consistently reiterated by this Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty