← 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

M/S. Satyam Realtors P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(4)Dy CIT CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 147Section 148Section 234B

stock-in-trade at Rs 4,36,77,204/- but no income was offered under "Income from House property". Even when an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake committed by the original Assessing Officer, subsequently, while ... done without referring to any tangible material coming to the possession of the AO. Ld.CIT(A) has observed that even when an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake committed by the original AO, subsequently, while verifying

M/S Volvo India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS), Bangalore

ITA 1195/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT(DR)
Section 194CSection 194HSection 194ISection 194JSection 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

from the “yearend provisions” (b) The Provision for expenses included the commission expenses payable to non-resident commission agents and they are not liable to tax in India in their hands. Hence the provisions of sec.195 are not applicable. ITA No.1195/Bang/2014 & 474/Bang/2016 Page 8 of 39 6. We heard ... liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act on the interest amount so paid, if the said payment is liable for tax deduction at source. We notice that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal, in the case of Pfizer Ltd (supra) did not consider the express provisions contained

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas the Cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1533/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar () & Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Chintamani V. Dingankar, Sr. DR
Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

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 Play Game 24X7 Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 1533/M/2019 & CO. No. 13/M/2021 in India. Accordingly, the view of learned CIT(A) that the payments would ... Ireland. It is admitted fact that Facebook Ireland does not have any permanent establishment in India. Therefore, such payment would not be liable to tax in India and there is no element of technical services involved in the present assessee’s case. The Fees for Technical Services covers under

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Ltu, Bangalore

ITA 2392/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.2391 & 2392/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 154Section 190Section 201Section 201(1)Section 37Section 40

from the “yearend provisions” (b) The Provision for expenses included the commission expenses payable to non-resident commission agents and they are not liable to tax in India in their hands. Hence the provisions of sec.195 are not applicable. 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. Before addressing ... liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act on the interest amount so paid, if the said payment is liable for tax deduction at source. We notice that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal, in the case of Pfizer Ltd (supra) did not consider the express provisions contained

M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited, Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, (TDS), Ltu, Bangalore

ITA 2391/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.2391 & 2392/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 154Section 190Section 201Section 201(1)Section 37Section 40

from the “yearend provisions” (b) The Provision for expenses included the commission expenses payable to non-resident commission agents and they are not liable to tax in India in their hands. Hence the provisions of sec.195 are not applicable. 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. Before addressing ... liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act on the interest amount so paid, if the said payment is liable for tax deduction at source. We notice that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal, in the case of Pfizer Ltd (supra) did not consider the express provisions contained

Biocon Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

ITA 1248/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 190Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

from the “yearend provisions” (b) The Provision for expenses included the commission expenses payable to non-resident commission agents and they are not liable to tax in India in their hands. Hence the provisions of sec.195 are not applicable. Biocon Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 30 6. We heard ... liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194A of the Act on the interest amount so paid, if the said payment is liable for tax deduction at source. We notice that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal, in the case of Pfizer Ltd (supra) did not consider the express provisions contained

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

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

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

claim of the assesee that sales tax subsidy received from State government of Karnataka is capital or reveune in nature which is liable to tax, one has to understand the purpose for which said subsidy was given by the State Government. If you go through, the industrial policy, 1993 announced

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Atlanta Elevators India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2500/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Thirumalesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

should not be any dispute with the advance received from customers against work orders constitute revenue receipts and hence, the same would be liable to tax, if it is written off in the books of accounts. However, in the instant case, it is the submission of the assessee that

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind S. Chavan, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(i)

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

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

also considered the other relevant judicial pronouncements while giving the finding that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital subsidy not liable to tax. The facts during the year under consideration are the same as in the earlier years. In the immediate preceding assessment year, following the decision ... inclined to allow the assessee's claim for treatment of Notional Sales tax of Rs.524,44,02,597/- as Capital receipt not liable to tax. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed. 5. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. Learned representatives fairly agree that

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

also considered the other relevant judicial pronouncements while giving the finding that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital subsidy not liable to tax. The facts during the year under consideration are the same as in the earlier years. In the immediate preceding assessment year, following the decision ... inclined to allow the assessee's claim for treatment of Notional Sales tax of Rs.524,44,02,597/- as Capital receipt not liable to tax. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed. 5. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. Learned representatives fairly agree that

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

also considered the other relevant judicial pronouncements while giving the finding that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital subsidy not liable to tax. The facts during the year under consideration are the same as in the earlier years. In the immediate preceding assessment year, following the decision ... inclined to allow the assessee's claim for treatment of Notional Sales tax of Rs.524,44,02,597/- as Capital receipt not liable to tax. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed. 5. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 6. Learned representatives fairly agree that

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Investments v. ACIT, [2021] 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bom) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that in the present case, income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment due to oversight and inadvertence or mistake, therefore the AO exercised jurisdiction ... derived from relevant judicial decisions; ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 45 (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

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Investments v. ACIT, [2021] 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bom) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that in the present case, income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment due to oversight and inadvertence or mistake, therefore the AO exercised jurisdiction ... derived from relevant judicial decisions; ITA Nos.464 to 465/Bang/2020 Page 6 of 45 (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

ITO (TDS)- 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Rainbow Devices Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1446/MUM/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1446/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Ito (Tds)-2(1)(4) बिधम/ M/S. Rainbow Devices Trust Room No.612, 6Th Floor, K. C/O. Axis Trustee Services Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Ltd. 2Nd Floor, 29 South West, Hospital Building, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002. Ruby It Park (Ruby Mills) Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadtr3790H आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1447/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) बिधम/ Ito (Tds)-2(1)(4) M/S. Rent-A- Device Trust Room No.612, 6Th Floor, K. C/O. Axis Trustee Services Vs. G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Ltd. 2Nd Floor, 29 South West, Building, Charni Road (W), Mumbai-400002. Ruby It Park (Ruby Mills) Dadar (West), Mumbai- 400028. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtr4732R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (DR)
Section 194Section 194ISection 201(1)

asset‟ viz. „receivable‟, therefore, the characterization of payment is „acquisition of asset‟ and cannot be characterized as „lease rentals‟. Such payments are not liable to tax withholding under any provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act. In, nutshell, The Assessing Officer's Contention can be summarized in following points

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

given the following finding:- “207. It is a well settled legal position that a capital receipt is not liable for tax unless the statute makes a specific provision to bring the same to tax. Such provisions to bring capital receipts to tax are available in the statute in section ... head Income from other Sources. The cases of receipt of a sum of money or any property by any person has been made liable to tax under the head Income from Other Sources from AY 2018-19 onwards by inserting Clause(x) in section 56(2). From the legal position

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

given the following finding:- “207. It is a well settled legal position that a capital receipt is not liable for tax unless the statute makes a specific provision to bring the same to tax. Such provisions to bring capital receipts to tax are available in the statute in section ... head Income from other Sources. The cases of receipt of a sum of money or any property by any person has been made liable to tax under the head Income from Other Sources from AY 2018-19 onwards by inserting Clause(x) in section 56(2). From the legal position

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 202/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

For Appellant: S/Sri. G.S.Prashanth, CA and Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

this cannot help the case of revenue just because an erroneous admission of income had been made it would not make the assessee liable to tax, for the simple reason that the charge of tax is on income computed in accordance with Section 5 of the Act and not based

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

For Appellant: S/Sri. G.S.Prashanth, CA and Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

this cannot help the case of revenue just because an erroneous admission of income had been made it would not make the assessee liable to tax, for the simple reason that the charge of tax is on income computed in accordance with Section 5 of the Act and not based