“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

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

course of assessment was of the view that the assessee had a PE in India and that the royalty income was liable to tax in India. The assessee agitated the matter in appeal, which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) who held that the assessee did not have

Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 9 to 14 is allowed

ITA 2639/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 254(1)Section 45(4)Section 48

finally, the partners in whose favour the transfer is made should acquire interest, then only profit or gain arising from such transfer is liable to tax under section 45(4) of the Act. Similar view was taken byfull bench of Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Dynamic Enterprises(supra

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida vs. Commissioner of Income Tax- Appeal, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2488/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

addition to surplus of Rs.6,80,737/- held as taxable income. The AO concluded that assessee is artificial judicial person and is liable to tax under Income Tax Act as Local Authority based on the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Noida Development Authority

Vijay Singh Chauhan, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-2(5), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2561/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 34

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

ACIT, Spl. Range-9, New Delhi vs. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

erred in upholding the action of the AO in alleging that the cost recharges earned by the non- resident parties, were liable to tax in India in the hands of such non-resident parties. 13. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... with relevant country whichever is advantageous. 8. Assessee has relied on the provisions of DTA to arrive at whether the overseas enterprise is liable to tax in India on the amounts received by it towards cost recharge of the various services rendered to it. 9. Applicability of relevant provisions

Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Spl.Range-9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7526/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Additional Commissioner Of Income 106-107, Ambadeep Building, Tax, Special Range-9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Additional Commissioner Of M/S Timex Group India Ltd. Income Tax, Special Range-9, 106-107, Ambadeep Building, New Delhi-110002 Vs Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0773C Revenue Assessee Assessee By Shri Tushar Jarwal, Adv. Shri Aayush Nagpal, Adv. & Shri Vikrant Maheshwari, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rohit Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Celestial Vision Limited, Bvi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1625/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Celestial Vision V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited बिधम Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1) Po Box No. 146, Road 604, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Town, Tortola, British Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Virgin Islands (East)400051. 111000. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc1160A Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vipul J. Shah-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR DR

Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vi)

Taxation Avoidance Agreement are subject to fulfilment of residency and substance criteria by the assessee. AO has already demonstrated that the income is liable to tax in India under Article 12 (Royalties/FTS) of the DTAA. The Supreme Court in Formula One World P a g e | 4 ITA No 1625/Mum/2025

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 724/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

challenged the said orders before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) held that the payments to M/s. Alpha Airport Holding Ltd., UK is liable to tax in India as per the DTAA with the UK since the services rendered are of technical in nature and the condition of “make available ... payments made to Kreol Trading EST, UAE, the Ld.CIT(A) had held that the payments made to Kreol Trading EST, UAE are not liable to tax on the ground that in the absence of a specific clause relating to FTS in the India-UAE DTAA, the income

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 723/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

ITA 722/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, САFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

challenged the said orders before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) held that the payments to M/s. Alpha Airport Holding Ltd., UK is liable to tax in India as per the DTAA with the UK since the services rendered are of technical in nature and the condition of "make available ... payments made to Kreol Trading EST, UAE, the Ld.CIT(A) had held that the payments made to Kreol Trading EST, UAE are not liable to tax on the ground that in the absence of a specific clause relating to FTS in the India-UAE DTAA, the income

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 721/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

ITA 720/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

challenged the said orders before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) held that the payments to M/s. Alpha Airport Holding Ltd., UK is liable to tax in India as per the DTAA with the UK since the services rendered are of technical in nature and the condition of "make available ... payments made to Kreol Trading EST, UAE, the Ld.CIT(A) had held that the payments made to Kreol Trading EST, UAE are not liable to tax on the ground that in the absence of a specific clause relating to FTS in the India-UAE DTAA, the income

Pranati Buildcon, Kota vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

Rs.70,04,814 found during the course of survey as business income instead of income from other sources which was to be liable to tax under section 69. 5.2 The Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur, Jaipur in its decision in the case of Shri Ram Narayan Birla in ITA No. 482/JP/2015

Devraj Vishwasrao Jadhav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Satara

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

ITA 2213/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / .Ita No.2213/Pun/2024 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Devraj Vishwasrao Ito, Ward-3, Satara Jadhav, R. No. 06, S. No. 24, Vs. Dreams Rhythm, Opposite Talathi Office, Bavdhan, Pune-411021 Maharashtra Pan-Aebpj6968F अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Dr. Prayag Jha Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08-09-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.09.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Dated 14.03.2023. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Arguments & Submissions Made By The Assessee & Dismissing All The Grounds Taken In Appeal. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Assessing Officer Had Not Served On The Assessee The Statutory Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The It Act & Therefore, The Impugned Order Was Passed Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

through stock exchange and the amount of Rs.80,11,889/- was received on account of sale proceeds and it was not unexplained credit liable to tax under section 68 of the IT Act. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO R had made addition ... Rs.36,35,415/- being cost of equity share purchased through his bank account and the amount was not unexplained money liable to tax under section 69A of the IT Act. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld AO F had made addition of Rs.74

Sharada Electors Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-3, Pune

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

payment of which cannot establish a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties. As such, the said sum or any part thereof cannot be liable to tax deducted at source under the relevant provisions of the IT Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

The Bombay Society of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2501/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

period of accumulation of 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

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 2259/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)

taxable in India. The assessee submitted that the transfer of goods happened outside India and hence the receipts are not liable to tax in India. The Ld.AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make addition by applying 5% of total receipts on protective basis ... assessee are not acceptable. Therefore, it is hereby held that the revenues stated to be emanating from the off-shore supply contract are liable to tax in India in the hands of the Association of Persons (AOP) formed by the assessee Siemens AG and Siemens (India) Limited. 8.8 During

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT (International Taxation)-Circle-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds No

ITA 1615/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 253(1)(d)Section 92C(3)