“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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Odean Shrine Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA No

ITA 3656/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

No.3842/Del/2017 21. The assessee has filed an additional Ground on 27.11.2018 contesting as follows: E tax subsidy held as capital receipt not liable to tax under normal provisions of the Act, also not taxable under the provisions of section 115JB.-Rs.23,41,15,755 22. It is submitted

Sivasundar Selvakumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Balakrishnan, CIT

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 194ISection 45

categorically observed that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the assessee’s husband and his brothers were liable to tax on the capital gains arising from the transfer of the capital asset, which stood mortgaged by them. The ld. CIT(A) has further held that there

DCIT-4(1), Indore vs. Maral Overseas Ltd, Khargone

In the result, the “Impugned

ITA 569/IND/2025[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshideputy Commissioner Of Maral Overseas Ltd. बनाम/ Income Tax- 4(1) Maral Srovar, V & Po, Vs. Indore Khalbujurg, Kasrawad, Khargone, Bhopal (Pan: Aaccm0230B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

public issue, deposited with Banks before commencement of commercial production, amounting to Rs. 1,51,54,534/- as Income from other sources liable to tax. The appellant has contended that this interest of Rs. 1,51,54,534/- is not taxable and as such deductible from pre-operative expenses

Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

For Appellant: Narendra Kumar Mishra, Bhopal

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

BSNL’s losses and restructuring. Relying on 42/CHD/2025 Sarabjit — Singh, it~ held. =the: ..ex-4 (SMC) gratia/compensation to be retrenchment | compensation not liable to tax, and deleted BSNL the disallowance. 3 | Rajeshwar 2014-15 | The Hon'ble Tribunal held that compensation Sharma vs. ITO, | PB 111-116 | paid on takeover

Sinhuj Dudh Utpadak Sah Man Limited, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2561/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Smt. Urvashi Mandhan, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

deduction under Section 80P of the Act, it was only the profit element embedded in the receipt of the assessee, that was liable to tax. He contended that on account of non- condonation of the delay grave prejudice had been caused to the assessee resulting in its entire receipts being

Sheetal Rajeev Gadre, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 8534/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

view that the Assessing Officer had sufficient tangible material (being information/report from the investigation wing) to form a belief that income liable to tax had escaped assessment. Therefore, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer

DCIT(It)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Madhavachari Rangachari, Mumbai

ITA 3814/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 254Section 9(1)(vii)

project work in India, the money received by these two companies would be taxable as fees for technical services and would be liable to tax in India. 6. Accordingly, treating the entire sum of INR 465 crore as taxable in India, the AO made an addition ... project work in India, the money received by these two companies would be taxable as fees for technical services and would be liable to tax as such. (x) Accordingly, the entire receipt of INR 465 crore was held to be taxable in the hands of the assessee on a substantive

Pratibha Singh, Shimla vs. ACIT Circle, Circle Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

predicate with certainty whether the income belongs to one person or another and the enquiry is undertaken to determine the correct person liable to tax. Thus, the very foundation of a protective assessment is the existence of doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer. A protective addition, therefore

Padam Kumar Agarwal, Darjeeling Stores M G Marg vs. AO, Gangtok

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

ITA 3248/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

into this exercise He had been only ITA No.: 3248/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Padam Kumar Agarwal. stating that he is not liable to tax being one of old settlers in Sikkim This issue has been separately dealt with and rejected. As such, in the absence of relevant material, this

Oragadam City Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(1), Chennai

In the result, Addition u/s

ITA 2173/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: MR. R. Sivaraman, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 56(2)(viib)

shares issued to the resident company, the premium amounting to Rs.2,42,55,000/- was considered by the AO to be liable to tax u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, and notice u/s.148 dated 21.03.2019 was issued. In response

Mata Bala Sundri Rice Mill, Village Kanipla, District Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar, Yamunagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 906/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mata Bala Sundri Rice Mill, The Ito, C/O Jagdamba Rice & General Mills, Vs Ward-3, Village-Kanipla, Po-Sarawan, Yamuna Nagar. Yamuna Nagar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aatfm9813G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

other income, which subsequently comes to notice has escaped from assessment, within the meaning of section 147, which is liable to tax for the A.Y. 2013-14. 5. Admittedly notice u/s 148 has been issued after expiry of four years. The interdiction provided in the 1st proviso appended to Section

Dentsu Aegis Network India Private Limited(Erstwhile Vizeum Media Service India Merged in Dan India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6122/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardentsu Aegis Network Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Vizeum Media Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Service India Merged Maharashi Karve With Dentsu Aegis Marg, Mumbai-400 Network India Private 020 Limited W.E.F. 1St April 2017) 2Nd Floor, Devchand House, Dr. A. B. Road, Shiv Sagar Estate Mumbai, Worli So, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3058N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Carat Media Services Pvt. Ltd have appropriately included the salary recharge received from the Appellant in its income liable to tax. 1.4 The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant submitted the details of employees employed by M/s. Aegis Media

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Seabird Exploration Fz-Llc, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

such application of the assessee, the AAR has held that income received by the assessee from the contract with ONGC is liable to tax as per Indian Taxation laws and further directed to computed the same in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB of the Act. In terms

Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Trust, Mainpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

ITA 607/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Campus S. K. Scientific Ward -4(2)(5), Public Inter College Karhal, Mainpuri Manipuri Pan : Aaots3631B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 144Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

consonance with well establish legal principle that unexplained cash credit, when no satisfactorily explained by the assessee are rightly treated as income liable to tax under the Act. 4 | P a g e 5. The assessee, despite repeated opportunities, failed to furnish any complete documentary evidence or verifiable explanation

Indutch Composites Technology Private Limited, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 2004/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 56(2)

said amount from Form No.26AS, but, the assessee noted to have not recorded the said income for the purposes of computing its income liable to tax. 5. Drawing our attention to para 4 of the assessment order, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the AO noted from Form

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., Baroda vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 903/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat. Considering The Same, The Order Passed By Itat Was Recalled & The Appeal Of The Assessee Fixed For Adjudication Afresh On Merits, Vide Order In Ma No.94/Ahd/2025, Dated 18.12.2025. The Present Appeal, Accordingly, Has Come Up For Hearing Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

having wrongly allowed the assessee a claim of alleged unascertained liability amounting to Rs.5,24,57,202/- while computing its book profits liable to tax under the minimum alternate tax regime u/s.115JB of the Act. The Book Profits had been determined at Rs.3,94,60,143/- in the assessment order

Dakshin Damodar Cold Storage Private Limited, Bankura More vs. ACIT Cir-1 Burdwan, Court Compound

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, DR

Section 194CSection 37(1)Section 40aSection 80G

contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the individual details of these bills are below the limit which are liable to tax at source. Moreover, the provisions of Section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable as these expenses were incurred on different dates

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

assessee for consideration does not amount to transfer in the hands of assessee under Sec. 2(47) of the Act and consequently not liable to tax under S4ec. 45 of the Act?" 6. The Assessing Authority relying on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Malbar Fisheries

M/S. Buhari Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2449/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2449/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Buhari Hotels & Motels Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.6, Gandhi Irwin Road, Corporate Circe 1(2), Egmore, Chennai. Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaecb 4681M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sujaya, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Sujaya, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 250

sale of plot of 1440 Sq.ft. Therefore, assessee at the time of reassessment proceedings cannot take up the contention that it is not liable to tax. 10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. As against the original assessment order, assessee had filed appeal

Max Square Ltd, Noida vs. ITO Ward-5(1)(5), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4100/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2021-22] Max Square Ltd. Vs Ito L-12, Max Tower, Sector-16-B Ward-5(1)(5) Gautam Budha Nagar Noida Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Pan-Aagcn5808G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Bhalla, Ca & Shri Nitin Kumar Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Gouranga Chandra Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2020-21/10308419 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 07.12.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief Acts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estates Development & Started Construction Of Commercial Complex Project “Max Square” At Sector 129, Noida. The Assessee Borrowed Funds From Indusind Bank Amounting To Inr 29.45 Crores For The Construction & Further Raised Funds Through Issue Of Equity/Ccd’S. The Funds Which Remained Un-Utilized, Were Invested Temporary In Fdrs From Which Interest Was Received Of Inr 63,77,502/- & Was Credited To The Cost Of Construction. However, The Ao Has Held The Same As Taxable Under The Head “Income From Other Sources”.

Section 143(3)Section 250

borrowed funds intended for project development is inextricably linked to the setting up of the project and hence constitutes a capital receipt not liable to tax. 1.2 The Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that the assessee had borrowed capital specifically