“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

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 87/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Airport V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Limited, 8, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Centre, Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 Cuffe Parade, Colaba S.O. 020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 57

dated 27.09.2024(supra).Respectfully following the above coordinate bench decision, we hold that the impugned interest income of Rs 23.55 cr. is not liable to tax. Thus, allowing the additional ground(supra),we direct P a g e | 16 ITA No. 37, 87/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Maharashtra Airport Development Company ... ought to appreciate that the grant received during the year from the State Government is a capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a State by itself or a surrogate of the State or an agent, performing the functions of the State and/or on behalf

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 37/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 57

dated 27.09.2024(supra). Respectfully following the above coordinate bench decision, we hold that the impugned interest income of Rs 23.55 cr. is not liable to tax. Thus, allowing the additional ground(supra), we direct Page | 16 ITA No. 37, 87/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai ... ought to appreciate that the grant received during the year from the State Government is a capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a State by itself or a surrogate of the State or an agent, performing the functions of the State and/or on behalf

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

pronouncement 21/05/2025 wherein this Bench has held that sales tax subsidy to be in the nature of a capital receipt and not liable to tax. The Ld. AR further submits that the allegation of the Ld. AO that the subsidy was granted for setting up a new unit ... Company, a Company registered under the laws of Egypt. The Assessee-Company contended that dividend income received from the Egypt Company is not liable to tax in India in terms of Article 11(2) of the India-United Arab Republic (Egypt) Tax Treaty (“India – UAR DTAA”). It was contended that

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1298/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 115

fact that the dividend declared and paid by the Appellant to Maxion Wheels Holding GmbH, being tax on dividend income should be liable to tax at the rate prescribed in the India-Germany DTAA.  In view of the above, the Appellant prays that the provisions of the tax treaty being

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1297/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 115

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1296/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 115

Kalyani Maxion Wheels Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, all the 4 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1295/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 115

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

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 ... that the subsidies received by the assessee under the Foreign Trade Policy was in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax”. 26. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a series of Tribunal decisions including: • Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 47/Mds/2016), • Dy. CIT v. Aarti

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Manthan Shyam Ganatra, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2032/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Maloo, AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

proving the source of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him, if he disputes, it is not liable to tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation

Ratan Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4130/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ratan Rajmal Mehta Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Harihar Niwas, Besant Road, 22(3)(1), Mumbai Vs. Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. Bdipm2252G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani (Virtually) Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, SR. AR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

case of Shri devlakshmi Dedhia V. ACIT in ITA 5350/MUM/2012, that the amounts received as compensation for hardship, rehabilitation and shifting are not liable to tax. On this aspect Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sarfaraz S. Furniturewalla Vs. Afshan Sharfali Ashok Kumar (2024) 166 Taxman.com

Natesan Ekambaram, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

From the above, it is clear the land has been classified as an agricultural land but for income tax purposes the appellant is liable to tax if the agricultural land is situated within the limits as prescribed in section 2(14) of the Act. 6.5.2 The assessee has contended that

Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(5), Banda

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

ITA 111/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Shreesh Kumar Tripathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-44, Avas Vikash Colony Head Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Post-Banda 210001, U.P. Pan:Agrpt7458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Mamta Pandey, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ito, Ward-2(2)(5), Banda Passed On 22.12.2019, Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “A. Because The Appellant Authority Has Failed To Provide Fair, Real & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard, In The Form-35 Petitioner Clearly Mentioned That Notices/Communication May Not Be Send On Email Mode. In This Case No Notice For Hearing Has Been Issued In Physical Mode. B. Because The Learned Assessing Officer As Well As Commissioner (Appeals) Has Passed The Order Based On Incorrect Appreciation Of Facts, Leading To An Erroneous Conclusion. C. Because Assessment Order As Well As Order-In-Appeal Has Been Passed In Ex-Parte Manner Without Giving Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. D. Because The Findings Recorded In The Impugned Order Are Contrary To The Material Evidence Available On Record, Resulting In A Flawed Assessment. E. Because Appellant Was Not Aware About The Issuance Of Notices At The Proceedings Stage Because He Got Registered Himself After Order Passed By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Ms. Mamta Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

before the ld. AO, failing which it could be presumed that the amounts deposited in his bank account are not explained, rendering them liable to tax. We also direct the ld. AO to give fresh consideration to the matter after examining the evidences submitted by the assessee. As the matter

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1437/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / V/S. Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

granted to promote industrial growth. Following these, the CIT(A) concluded that the subsidy in assessee's case was a capital receipt not liable to tax and directed deletion of the addition made by AO. 18. The AR of the assessee submitted that identical issue had arisen in earlier years ... specific adjustments to be made to the net profit as per the profit and loss account. Since a receipt of capital nature, not liable to tax under the Act, cannot be brought to tax indirectly through the deeming fiction of section 115JB unless specifically included in the adjustments under Explanation

The Acti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 1436/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

granted to promote industrial growth. Following these, the CIT(A) concluded that the subsidy in assessee's case was a capital receipt not liable to tax and directed deletion of the addition made by AO. 18. The AR of the assessee submitted that identical issue had arisen in earlier years ... specific adjustments to be made to the net profit as per the profit and loss account. Since a receipt of capital nature, not liable to tax under the Act, cannot be brought to tax indirectly through the deeming fiction of Section 115JB unless specifically included in the adjustments under Explanation

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1413/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dcti, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1412/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1412 & 1413/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: (2015-2016 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner बनाम / Of Income Tax, V/S. Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacn5350K आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. Nirma Limited, बनाम / Nirma House, V/S. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K & C.O Nos.11-12/Ahd/2020 In आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1436-1437/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : (2015-16 & 2016-17) Nirma Limited, Nirma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. (Gujarat) The Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ V/S. Income Tax/The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad. स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacn5350K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, withFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Satara vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3, Satara

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

ITA 1796/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 184ASection 4

required by CBDT guidelines and various judicial pronouncement. c) The information of cash withdrawal from bank does not suggest escapement of income liable to tax and assessing officer does not have any information suggesting escapement of income chargeable to tax. This is in violation of 1st provision to section

Nancy Traders, Ulhasnagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 4403/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Nancy Traders, Dy. Cit Circle 1, A-25/145 Kala Palace, Ground Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Madhuban Hotel Road C Block, Vs. Swanand Colony, Gandhar Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-421001. Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan-421301. Pan No. Aagfn 3518 E Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sunil M. Makhija

amount of Rs. 1,90,73,560/- (derived by Assessing Officer (derived by Assessing Officer as short term capital gain) was liable to tax as short term term capital gain) was liable to tax as short term term capital gain) was liable to tax as short term capital gain even ... that even if an amount of Rs. 36,22,583/- (derived by (derived by Assessing Officer as long term capital gain) was liable to tax as Assessing Officer as long term capital gain) was liable to tax as Assessing Officer as long term capital gain) was liable to tax

Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem.Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Roman Catholic Church Of St. Income Tax Officer (Exem.), Paul Ward 2(2) St Paul Church, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 400014 (Pan : Aaatr2742L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, CIT DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

period of accumulation or 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