“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

ACIT-31(1), Mumbai vs. Ecomomes Township LLP, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 5888/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit – 31(1) V. M/S. Ecohomes Township Llp 14Th Floor, Eco Star Room No. 602, 6Th Floor Vishweshar Nagar Cross Road Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Off. Aarey Road, Goregaon (E) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400063 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aadfe2724Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Guidance Notes issued by ICAI can 13 M/s. Ecohomes Township LLP be relied upon and the fair and real income which is liable to tax under the Act can be arrived at after applying the Guidance Note, for that purpose she relied on the following case laws

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 6693/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 28Section 37

view that receipts received by the assessee on sale of carbon credit are to be treated as capital receipts and not liable to tax. The ld. DRP has assigned one more reasons for not entertaining claim of the assessee particularly in the assessment year 2012- 13 is that such claim ... Supra). Further, in other cases too, the Hon’ble High SRF Ltd. vs. ACIT Courts have held CER as the capital receipts not liable to tax. This tribunal in earlier years also has dealt with this issue in the case of assessee and remitted the matter to the file

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Timken Engineering & Research India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 694/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar Rampurawala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

proved. In the instant case, the assessee has not brought on any authority, which formed the basis that the impugned payments are not liable to tax deduction at source. ITA Nos.694 & 517/Bang/2019 M/s. Timken Engineering & Research India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 15 of 17 18. We noticed earlier that

M/S Timken Engineering and Research India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal and cross objection filed by the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Aliasghar Rampurawala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Dy CIT - CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

ITA 634/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 48

Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much ... apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon’ble Apex Court

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT International Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 154/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1 Paya Lebar Link, #05-05 Plq2, International Tax Circle 4(2)(1) Paya Lebar Quarter, Paya Lebar 17Th Floor, Air India Building Road, Singapore 408 533 Nariman Point Mumbai C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp One International Center Tower 3, 30Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai- 400 013, India Pan : Aabca6590M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate Respondent By Shri Milind Chavan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 143(3)

that there is no dispute that there is a permanent establishment of assessee in India and income of that PE of assessee is liable to tax in India. He specifically referred to paragraph 12.3 and submitted that when a particular percentage of the total revenue is charged to tax

M/S I G Petrochemical Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1317/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)(vd)Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

allowed as deduction in any earlier assessment year, then only the waiver can be treated as revenue receipt liable to tax. With these observations, we remit the issue with regard to interest waiver only to the file of the AO for reconsideration. 22. In the result, the appeal ... earlier assessment year, then only the waiver can be M/s. I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 10 treated as revenue receipt liable to tax. With these observations, we remit the issue with regard to interest waiver only to the file of the AO for reconsideration.” 7. Being

DCIT (Ex) - 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Bohra Merchants Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of The Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Income Tax (Ex) -1(1) Bohra Merchants’ Association Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 56/62, Chandabai Bldg., Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, 2Nd Floor, Mangaldas Road, Lohar Chawl, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 002 Pan No. Aaatl0024D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR

Section 1Section 11Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 36A(3)Section 69A

also confirmed in the remand report that there was no element of income in such deposits which are liable to tax, he deleted the addition of ₹15,95,82,806/–. He agreed that that the activity of self-help would satisfy the test of charitable purpose as defined

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

after performance of that mental exercise of his own he could form the requisite formation of belief that the income of the assessed liable to tax for a particular year has escaped assessment The Assessing Officer thereafter can issue notice to the appellant Assessee respectfully submits that there existed

Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 166/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any forward. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon’ble Apex Court

Dy. CIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 165/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any forward. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon’ble Apex Court

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 123/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any forward. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon’ble Apex Court

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 951/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Buro Happold Ltd Vs. Dcit (It) – 1(3)(2) C/O. Urmi Axis, 6Th 1810, 18Th Floor, Air Floor, Famous Studio India Bldg, Lane, Dr. Emoses Road, Narimanpoint,Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 021. 400011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb9239Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234B

taxed in India. Also the receipts of the assessee are held to be covered by Article 13 of the India UK DTAA and liable to tax in India. In light of the above, the DRP in its directions u/s 144C(5) of the IT Act dated 24.02.2021 has held that

I.B. Communications Network Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 623/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Nischal B, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 56(2)(viib)

consideration received by such issuing company in excess of the FMV, to the extent it exceeds the face value of such shall be liable to tax. For the purpose of this section FMV shall be the value, higher of the following – (a) as may be determined in accordance with such

ACIT, Circle - 16 (1), Mumbai vs. Bbc Worldwide Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.C T Mathew. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 92C

subvention assistance received by assessee from its holding company to recoup losses likely to be suffered by it, was a capital receipt not liable to tax - Held, yes [In favour of assessee There is no shift in the nature of the determinative test, to decide whether a receipt is revenue ... subvention assistance received by assessee from its holding company to recoup losses likely to be suffered by it, was a capital receipt not liable to tax - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] There is no shift in the nature of the determinative test, to decide whether a receipt is revenue

Pati Bel (Jv), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7256/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Pati Bell (Iv) Vs Acit C/O. Ue Development India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-62(1) No. 116, 702, 7Th Floor, Pride Hulkul, New Delhi Lalbagh, Bengaluru, Karnataka Pan-Aaffp1650G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. T. Kipgen, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

This does not make the JV partners sub-contractors of the Appellant. Therefore, the payment made by the Appellant to BEL is not liable to tax under Section 194C of the Act and hence we request your good self to delete the penalty imposed under Section ... Interest" of the Tax Treaty. /Is PATI Sendirian Berhad doesn't have a permanent establishment in India, the said payment is not liable to tax in India under "Article 7- Business Profits". 7 1.2.4. As per "Article 11 - Interest" para 4, the term interest has been defined as follows

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mitsui & Co., New Delhi

In the result, CO of assessee for A

ITA 5108/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 144C(3)Section 44B

order in para 46 of the order concluded that CIT(A) was correct in holding that income from offshore supplies was not liable to tax in India both u/s 44BBB as well as under the provisions of Article – 7 r.w. para 6 of DTAA between India & Japan. The aforesaid order

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mitsui & Co., New Delhi

In the result, CO of assessee for A

ITA 5106/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 144C(3)Section 44B

M/S Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Orkla Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., The Deputy C/O Mtr Foods Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Income Tax (It), 100 Feet Inner Ring Road, Asmnt, Circle – 2(1), Ejipura, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 047. Pan: Aabco4087B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143 (3) By The Ld.Dcit, Asmnt, Circle-2(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Hereinafter Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. Barred By Limitation The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Learned Ao') Is Barred By Limitation In View Of The Express Provisions Of Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Wherein, The Order Should Be Passed Within One Month From The End Of The Month In Which Dispute

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate

Section 143Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 9(1)(vii)

erred in not appreciating that the services in question were provided for the export business of the service recipient and therefore not liable to tax as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act.  The learned AO and Hon'ble DRP has erred ... operation - Whether on facts, amounts reimbursed by assessee to overseas companies in terms of secondment agreement amounted to 'fee for technical services' liable to tax in India and, thus, assessee was required to deduct tax at source while making said payments - Held, yes [In favour of revenue] " We note that

Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 330/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate and Shri Pulkit Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 94(7)

uphold the order of the CIT(A), who had rightly concluded that the refund of the excise duty of Rs. 1 crore was liable to tax during the year under consideration. The Ground of appeal no. 4 is dismissed. Page 13 of 37 Frick India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle