“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

Delfin Finance P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

ITA 2958/DEL/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

available. Only after applying such method which is prescribed in the Guidance Note the Respondent can show fair and real income which is liable to tax under the IT Act. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Respondent claimed deduction by virtue of guidance note rather it only applied

Delfin Finance P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 1997-98 is allowed

ITA 2957/DEL/2019[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Krishna Residency A B and C Co - Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO WD. 41(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2025[2016 - 17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Krishna Residency A B & C Co-Operative Ito, Ward – 41(3)(2), Mumbai Housing Society Limited, Vs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Society Office, C Wing, Krishna Residency Complex, Mumbai -400051. A B & C Chs Ltd., Behind Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai – 400064. [Pan: Aaabk0296L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80P

incurred is also not taxable, and that the interest from bank other than the Co-operative bank is the only income which is liable to tax. 4. The CPC, Bengaluru further did not appreciate that the authorities under the Act are required to assist the assessee and ensure that only

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4056/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153Section 153CSection 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)

India u/s 6(3) of the Act and even if the foreign company is non-resident in India, they will still be liable for tax in India u/s 9(1) of the Act. Accordingly, Ld. A.O. passed an assessment orders on 28/03/2014u/s 153C/144 of the Act by holding that income

Nv Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1418/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R

Section 36(1)(iii)

undertaken by the assessee, failing to appreciate that the said transaction amounts to buyback of shares and distribution of profits, and is therefore liable to tax as per the provisions of the said section 115QA of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... which categorically hold that capital reduction resulting in payments to shareholders is akin to a buyback and consequently liable to tax under Section 115QAP" 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting interest levied u/s 115QB

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. N V Project Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1025/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R

Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee, failing to appreciate that the said transaction amounts to buyback of shares and distribution of profits, 8 and is therefore liable to tax as per the provisions of the said section 115QA of the Act?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... which categorically hold that capital reduction resulting in payments to shareholders is akin to a buyback and consequently liable to tax under Section 115QAP" 5. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting interest levied u/s 115QB

Surya Singhal, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

from the firm. The assessee obtained the legal advice and was of the opinion that such revaluation is capital receipt which is not liable to tax. Hence, we feel that income cannot be added simply on the basis of surrender. The statement recorded u/s 132(4) can be rebutted ... assessee and the case of the assessee is that the amount is not liable to tax. viii) Jagdish Narain Ratan Kumar V/s_ACIT_22_TW 209 (JP) Statement recorded during search are generally influenced by extraneous circumstances & cannot be termed as free from all ambiguity. b.5 The following decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan

Sharad Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the is partly allowed

ITA 692/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Sharad Kumar Singh Circle-3(1), Income Tax Office 10A, Norode Behari Mullick Road, 3, Government Place, Vs. Kolkata-700006, West Bengal West Bengal-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alqps3842K Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR

Section 195Section 40Section 40A(3)

course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that since the assessee has not deducted the TDS at source, the amount was liable to tax in terms of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and same was added to the income of the assessee. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings

Sarangpur Talias Pole Punch Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 929/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

amended provisions of section 11(1)(c) of the Act. The addition of Rs.2,00,000/- has been made liable to tax @ 30% plus cess @ 4% of 30% u/sll5BBloftheAct. In facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- deserves be deleted

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

stock for Rs.70,04,814/- found during the course of surveyas ‘business income' instead of 'income from other sources' which was to be liable to tax u/s 69? The Tribunal while considering the matter has observed as "2. 11. Having said that, the next issue that arises for consideration

Income Tax Officer, Murshidabad vs. Asok Kumar Jain, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 804/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer Asok Kumar Jain Aaykar Bhawan, 39, Rn Tagore 23, Shahid Surya Sen Road, Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad, Berhampore, Murshidabad, Vs. West Bengal-742101 West Bengal-742101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpj2710Yh Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR

Section 143(1)Section 237Section 56(2)(vi)

Total Capital Receipts (not offered for tax) of Rs 739629.62 The details bifurcation of Rs 739629.62 is shown below: Therefore, the appellant was liable to tax on the remaining capital receipt of Rs 724369. The appellant mentioned that he inadvertently had shown capital receipt of Rs 26320481 in point

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

view already taken by us in this case that the aforesaid subsidies are capital receipt and not an "income" and not liable to tax, the Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 254 of the Income-tax Act justified this claim though no revised return under section ... incentives received under the FPS/FMS/SHIS Schemes notified under the Foreign Trade Policy was held to be capital in nature and thus not liable to tax. The relevant findings of this Tribunal, as noted by us, are as under: "43. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available

Shivprasad Kashinath Desai, Sindhudurg vs. ITO Ward, Kudal

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

ITA 1003/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

states that the assessee resides in a remote village and is not well versed with the income-tax proceedings and has no income liable to tax. Land in question was purchased by the assessee’s father in the name of the assessee, his wife and his Son and Daughter

Nimmatoori Ramesh Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 597/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273BSection 4

land sold by the assessee and held that, “it is an agriculture land situated beyond the specified limit and consequently is not liable to tax”. We find that, the Tribunal has considered the very same land sold by the assessee to M/s. Incredible India Projects Private Limited and M/s. Aishwarya

Late Nimmatoori Rajababu L/R by Anudeep Nimmatoori, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 596/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273BSection 4

Late Nimmatoori Raja Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 594/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Dhritiman Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 542/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

income earned in Denmark also to be taxed in India in his revised income. As the income earned in Denmark was also liable to taxed in Denmark, the assessee claimed relief u/s 90 of the Act amounting to Rs.7,83,371/- on the income subjected to double taxation. The assessee

Nimmatoori Sulochana, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

that, the assessee fails in his attempt to seek shelter from the attendant penalty provisions under the garb of the incomes not being liable to tax. The assessee in his submissions has not disputed the quantum of the amounts determined by the Assessing Officer as receipts from the aforesaid transactions ... presumption of the assessee that, incomes not liable to tax are not subject to provisions of section 269SS of the Act, does not constitute a ‘reasonable cause’ for the purposes of section 273B, Since, both the payer and payee in transaction 10 ITA.Nos.602 & 603/Hyd./2025 possessed valid operational bank

Nimmatoori Yashoda, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Vijayawada vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 2000/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)

assessment u/s,148 of the Act, the 'Tangible material' need not be from outside the return of income. 5.2.7 When an income liable to tax has escaped assessment in the original assessment proceedings due to oversight and inadvertence or a mistake committed by Assessing Officer, he has jurisdiction to reopen