“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

Taj Tv Ltd, Mauritius vs. DCIT (International Taxation)- 4 (1) (2), Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

assessee company that the ITA No.1460/M/2021 & ors. 7 M/s. Taj TV Ltd payment made to Intelsat, USA towards transponder fees is not liable to tax in India in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and also the provisions of DTAA between India and USA and as such

M/S. Subhkam Ventures (India), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5298/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh

Section 143(3)Section 14A

case of growth funds and whatever gain is made that is taxable under the Act. Similarly, the dividend received from foreign companies is liable to tax and consequently these investments have to be excluded. Lastly, the investments in properties also did not form part of the investments for the purpose

DCIT (It) 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Globalcom.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2319/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Amit Khatiwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

India. The Appellant submits that considering clause (a) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(1) the receipts from Indian parties is not liable to tax in India." 14. By way of the said Additional Ground of appeal, assessee has sought to canvass that no part of the receipt from

Sarvojanin Kali Puja Committee (Andheri), Andheri (Mumbai) vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1574/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

which ought to have been considered and calculated on slab basis. The appellant being a charitable trust registered u/s 12AA and is thereby liable to tax at normal slabs as applicable to individuals. 2. The learned CIT (A) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order and ignoring your appellant

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

receipt is on account of giving up the source of income, then the same has to be treated as capital receipts, not liable to tax. In the present case, what has been received is a consideration for giving up the right to use the profit generating apparatus 10 Larsen & Toubro

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Private Limited'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2129/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

learned CIT (A) and the learned AO ought to have observed that the services received have been utilized outside India and therefore not liable to tax. d. The learned CIT(A) and the learned AO ought to have appreciated that the expenses have been incurred for earning income from outside ... India and therefore not liable to tax. e. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, even if the consultancy fees is considered as Fees for technical Service, the learned CIT(A) and the learned AO have failed to appreciate that the services of M/s. People Search Pte of Singapore

Lemnisk Private Limited (Formerly Known As 'Vizury Interactive Solutions Pvt Ltd'), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 1851/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan

Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -16, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Toprani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

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 department to prove that

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Appellant stated that on re- verification of all the documents it was noticed that the surrender value of the insurance policy was liable to tax in case less than 5 premiums were paid. Since the Appellant had paid only 3 premiums, the surrender value was being offered to tax. Accordingly

Sehorse Mercantile Co. P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1286/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 263

record some evidence to prove that the appropriate income has not been assessed by the Ld. A.O. and that the Appellant was liable to tax on an income which was higher than the income offered and assessed by the Ld. A.O. in the assessment order. In the revision order, except

M/S Irunway India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Irunway India Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. Regus Business Center, Office Circle – 3(1)(1), No.1015, Bengaluru. 10Th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector 39, Gurugram, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 003. Pan : Aabci 5613 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 37Section 40

services and technical knowledge is withheld, then, such a technical service would not fall within definition of technical services in DTAA and not liable to tax. In that case the assessee for the purpose of carrying out geophysical survey, for its mining company entered into an agreement with a Dutch

ITO 5(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Malabar Hills Club Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3592/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 5(2)(3) V. M/S. Malabar Hill Club Limited Room No. 566, 5Th Floor B.G. Kher Marg, Malabar Hill Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacw3868M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Shri Vishal Asrani Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D. Sheth and Shri Vishal AsraniFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(3)

held that the entrance fee par by the life members equivalent to the amount collected from ordinary members is a capital receipts not liable to tax and the balance amount is in fact compounded payment in lieu of annual subscriptions and therefore are revenue receipts. Thus it will be seen ... held that the entrance fee paid by the life members equivalent to the amount collected from ordinary members is a capital receipts not liable to tax and the balance amount is infact compounded payment in lieu of annual subscriptions and therefore are revenue receipts. . Thus it will be seen that

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Mysore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1589/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

deducted tax at source. If the AO had accepted in the hands of Bangalore Turf club that the dope test charges are not liable to tax deduction at source or if the Bangalore Turf club has already deducted TDS, then, in our view, there is no requirement for the assessee

M/S Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mysore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1232/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Kaptronics Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

respect of which there was no allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee during previous years, amounted to capital receipt and is not liable to tax u/s. 41(1). He observed that in the present case the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary company ... respect of amount in question for the previous years, when creditor waived repayment of the said amount, it amounted to capital receipt not liable to tax. 5. The CIT(A) was of the opinion that to the extent of interest claimed and allowed as business expenditure, it would be business

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT–DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90Section 91

been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of income tax for a period of 10 years. It does

Shree Krishna Woollen Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7373/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () M/S Shree Krishna Woolen Income Tax Officer 15(3)(2) Mills Pvt. Ld., Krishna Mill Vs. Mumbai Compound, Behind Sonapur, Bhandup (West), Mumbai – 400 078 Pan No. Aabcs9353G (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R

BCDRC 189. The assessee has rightly treated these receipts of damages of Rs.4,88,19,661/- as revenue receipts and accordingly liable to tax and therefore, properly treated the ITA No.7373/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 4 M/s Shree Krishna Woolen Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer-15(3)(2) total

Hemant Kumar Ruia, Mumbai vs. ACIT-18(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 973/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Proceeding To Make Disallowance Under Rule 8D2((Ii) & (Iii)Of I.T. Rules, 1962. 1.2 In So Doing The Ld Cit (A'S) Did Not Follow The Principle Laid Down By The Apex Court In The Case Of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2018) 91 Taxman.Com 154 (Sc) Of Apportionment Of Expenditure Between Income Liable To Tax & Income Which Is Exempt. 1.3 The Ld. Cit (A'S) Erred In Upholding The Decision Of Ao That Interest On Public Provident Fund Was Liable To Be Considered For The Purpose Of Computing Disallowance U/S 14Aof The Act. 1.4 In Any Event Of The Matter The Ld. Cit (A'S) Ought To Have Restricted The Disallowance To The Extent Of Rs. 62,977/- Being Dividend Received On Shares Held As Stock In Trade.

Section 14A

down by the Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2018) 91 Taxman.com 154 (SC) of apportionment of expenditure between income liable to tax and income which is exempt. 1.3 The Ld. CIT (A's) erred in upholding the decision of AO that interest on Public Provident Fund

Gujarat Pipavav Ports Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3361/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

observed that in the said case, the Mumbai Tribunal held that a capital receipt is one which is not liable to tax as per the provisions of the Act and hence, a receipt which remains exempt from its inception would not fall within the ambit of income

Rashmi Ameya Developers Housing & Estate Realtors P. Ltd., Palghar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Thane

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1990/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rashmi Ameya Developers Acit, Central Circle-3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Road No. Housing & Estate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. D Ii, 01 02, Akanksha Commercial 16Z, Wagale Industrial Estate, Complex, Opp. Sajavat Complex, Thane-400 604. Achole Road, Nallasopara, Dist. Palghar-401 203. Pan No. Aaecr 8508 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153C

transactions were advances received towards proposed sale of FSI/land at village Gokhivare, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar and did not result in any "income" liable for tax in the hands of the appellant in the year under appeal and therefore the addition was not justified. 2. On the facts ... FSI/land at village Rashmi Ameya Developers 9 ITA Nos. 1990/M/2020 & Ors. Gokhivare, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar and did not result in any "income" liable for tax in the hands of the appellant in the year under appeal and therefore the addition to the returned income was not justified