← 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

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

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

Telenor Asa, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1307/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1307/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Telenor Asa, Vs Dcit, C/O Vaish Associates Advocates, Circle-Gurgaon, Intl. Taxation, 1St Floor, Mohandev Building, 13, New Delhi-110002 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadct5705F Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Dr. Prabha Kant, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234B

providing business support services to Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) India P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as (‘Unitech Wireless’) was 2 Telenor ASA liable to tax as business profit under Article 7 of the India-Norway Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (‘the Treaty’) instead of “Fees for technical services” (“FTS”) under Article ... effectively connected’ to any pre-existing PE of the appellant in India, ; in terms of Article 13(5) and was thus not liable to tax under Article 7 of the Treaty. 3 Telenor ASA 5. Without prejudice to the above, that the Assessing Officer erred on facts

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 19/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6953/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5538/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5994/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi vs. M/S. Westin Hotel Management Lp, New Delhi

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5336/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115ASection 9

relevant agreements as well as the nature of assessee's own business, the said amount clearly represented its 'business profit' which was not liable to tax in terms of Article 7 of the Indo-American DTAA. We, therefore, allow the relevant grounds raised in the assessee's appeals on this

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi vs. Statwood (M) International Inc., Noida

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5191/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115ASection 9

relevant agreements as well as the nature of assessee's own business, the said amount clearly represented its 'business profit' which was not liable to tax in terms of Article 7 of the Indo-American DTAA. We, therefore, allow the relevant grounds raised in the assessee's appeals on this

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Expenditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2260/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

M/S Expeditors International (India) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2242/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax in breach of the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in treating the payment of lease line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2.2 (c) That on the facts and circumstances

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

discussed the essential ingredients for attracting Section 9(1) of the Act and has held that the non-residents are liable to tax in India on account of 'business connection' and has thereafter has given a finding that there is no business connection in India. On perusal of the material

Jas Forwarding Worldwide Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor advocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Pal [CIT] – DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 40Section 92CSection 92C(2)

discussed the essential ingredients for attracting Section 9(1) of the Act and has held that the non-residents are liable to tax in India on account of 'business connection' and has thereafter has given a finding that there is no business connection in India. On perusal of the material

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 3997/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Vs. Dcit, Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0828R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 40

added to the total income of the assessee. Hence, any interest that accrues on the said amount is assessee’s own income and liable to taxed in his hands. He further held that as the learned CIT – A in the assessment year 2006 – 07 has deleted the entire amount

Expeditors International (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 16/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in treating the payment of lease CO No.260/Del/2012 ITA No.1854/Del/2014 line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961('Act'). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Kavita Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

virtue of CBDT Circular No.528 dated 16th December, 1988 income earned by the appellant from Profit on Sale/Redemption of investments is not liable to tax. 2. Without prejudice, on facts and in law the CIT (A)/AO erred in not appreciating that Profit on Sale/Redemption of M/s The Oriental Insurance

M/S the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4535/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

virtue of CBDT Circular No.528 dated 16th December, 1988 income earned by the appellant from Profit on Sale/Redemption of investments is not liable to tax. 2. Without prejudice, on facts and in law the CIT (A)/AO erred in not appreciating that Profit on Sale/Redemption of M/s The Oriental Insurance

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Expeditors International India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2231/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92Section 92C

erred in not providing an adequate opportunity to the appellant of being heard and explained before treating the lease line charges as royalty liable to tax, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2.2 (a) Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case ... erred in treating the payment of lease CO No.260/Del/2012 ITA No.1854/Del/2014 line connectivity charges as liable for tax and therefore disallowing the expense u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961('Act'). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case