← 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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4791/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 92C

ITA Nos.4859/Del/2009; ITA Nos.157 to 159, 4791, 4856 &5358/Del/2010 & ITA No.2539/Del/2017 Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 159/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 92C

that assessee is entitled to treat Rs.16.91 crores as sales tax subsidy and Rs.6.46 crores as purchase tax subsidy being capital receipt not liable to tax. This claim has been made by the assessee on the basis of special bench decision in the case of Reliance Industry

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 158/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 92C

ITA Nos.4859/Del/2009; ITA Nos.157 to 159, 4791, 4856 &5358/Del/2010 & ITA No.2539/Del/2017 Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gujrat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 157/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 92C

ITA Nos.4859/Del/2009; ITA Nos.157 to 159, 4791, 4856 &5358/Del/2010 & ITA No.2539/Del/2017 Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Gujrat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4859/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 92C

ITA Nos.4859/Del/2009; ITA Nos.157 to 159, 4791,4856 &5358/Del/2010 & ITA No.2539/Del/2017 Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi IN THE INCOME TAX

Abhay Nitin Arekar, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vapi

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

ITA 276/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 80T

Based on Principal of Natural Justice, appellant prays for relief from tax imposed on income of other person and that too not liable to tax. 10. The Appellant craved leave to add, alter, delete, amend or rescind any of the above grounds of appeal as and when necessary, with

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

advances have to be taxed as deemed dividend in the case of the assessee. As such there is reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT 12. On a perusal

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 881/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

advances have to be taxed as deemed dividend in the case of the assessee. As such there is reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT 12. On a perusal

Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 880/COCH/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

advances have to be taxed as deemed dividend in the case of the assessee. As such there is reason to believe that income liable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali vs. ACIT 12. On a perusal

Mani Balasubramani, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 978/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:978/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mani Balasubramani, Income Tax Officer, No.6/166, Thoppukadu Thottam, Vs. Ward 2, Namakkal. Sundakkampalayam, Keelsathambur Po, Namakkal – 637 207. [Pan:Amppb-2730-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 144Section 147Section 148

reason to believe that the income at least to the extent of Rs.16,87,700/- being unexplained cash deposits made by him, liable to tax, has escaped assessment within the context and purview of the section 147 of the IT Act. Therefore, as there is escapement of income, in order

Shree Dadar Digamer Jain Mumuksho Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption) Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Dadar Digamber Jain The Cit (Exemption), Mumukshu Mandal, Ward-2(3), 271/293, 271/293, Vs. Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Road, Opp: Shivaji Park, P.O. Dadar (West) Mumbai-400028. Pan : Aacts8044A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.N. Shah For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 05-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A.N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)

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

Gujarat State Police Housing Corpn. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 575/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 575/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Gujarat State Police Housing The Deputy बनामVs. Corporation Limited, Commissioner Of B/H Lokayukta Bhavan, Income Tax, Chh Road, Gandhinagar Circle, Sector10/B, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar-382010. Pan: Aaacg5532C

For Appellant: Shri S N Divetia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250

received interest of Rs.27,67,422/- u/s.244A of the Act during the year. Further, the interest received on income tax refund is liable to tax under the head “income from other sources” and accordingly the assessee was required to disclose this interest in the income tax return ... assessee and not with the Government of Gujarat. Further, as rightly pointed by the Revenue, whether the interest u/s.244A of the Act was liable to tax in the hands of the assessee or not, required application of mind and this cannot be considered as mistake Asst. Year

Hitendrakumar Thakorbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. Ward 3(1)(5), Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

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

ITA 2033/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblehitendrakumar Thakorbhai Income Tax Officer, Vs. Patel, Ward-3(1)(5), Darwaja Khadki, Vadodara. At Simli, Post Simli Talkarjan, Vadodara-391244. [Pan :Arupp0754 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krutarth K Desai, Ar Respondent By: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth K Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 69A

Year : 2017-18 - 3– demonetization period and proceeded to treat the amount of Rs. 5,92,006/- in the form of unexplained money liable to tax u/s 69A. 4. During the year under dispute, the appellant has shown rental income of Rs. 85,480/- and agricultural income

Sanjaykumar Rameshbhai Mali, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 208Section 234Section 234ASection 234B

facts of the case your Appellant submits that since the Assessee had genuine and bonafide belief that his Income is not liable to tax and is not required to file Return of Income. Hence for 2 I.T.A No. 508/Ahd/2025 Sanjaykumar Rameshbhai Mali, A.Y. 2012-13 good and valid reason

Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Surat vs. PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 117, Khambhati Panchni Waid Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Rustompura, Surat - 395002 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdpm 3296 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

Section 114BSection 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

covered by the above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. Hence, the receipt of the impugned on-money was not liable to tax in AY 2014-15. 13. In view of the above discussion and respectfully following the decisions cited supra, we set aside the order

Sivakarthick Raman, Madurai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 281/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:281/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Sivakarthick Raman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 5/200, 2Nd Street, Alagupillai Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, T.Pudukudi, International Taxation Circle, Achampathu, Madurai. Madurai – 625 019. [Pan: Ajnpr-3214-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 15Section 15(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234DSection 5(2)Section 5(2)(a)Section 9(1)(ii)Section 90

purposes of this Agreement, the term "resident of a Contracting State" means any person who, under the laws of that Contracting State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of head office or any other criterion of a similar nature.” 4. As the assessee qualified

ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

stay in India was less than 183 days and therefore in view of the above Article 15 (supra), the impugned payment was not liable to tax in India. We thus note that, as the impugned payment was not chargeable to tax in India, ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 ... held that, the consultancy fees paid to non-resident individuals whose period of stay in India did not exceed 183 days was not liable to tax in India, in terms of Article 15 of DTAA between India & USA and therefore the disallowance made

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 2330/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2330/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai. V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv. & Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Adv. Department By : Mr.A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

stay in India was less than 183 days and therefore in view of the above Article 15 (supra), the impugned payment was not liable to tax in India. We thus note that, as the impugned payment was not chargeable to tax in India, ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 ... held that, the consultancy fees paid to non-resident individuals whose period of stay in India did not exceed 183 days was not liable to tax in India, in terms of Article 15 of DTAA between India & USA and therefore the disallowance made

Amadeus It Group Sa, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Civic Center

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1494/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

absence of any liability for payment of advance tax since tax is deductible at source on the income of the assessee held liable to tax in India, the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act is not warranted. The ld. counsel for the assessee continued by saying that ... absence of any liability for payment of advance tax since tax is deductible at source of the income of the taxpayer held liable to tax in India, the levy of interest u/s 234B is not warranted. 34. Provisions contained below section 209(1)(d) of the Act introduced by Finance

Lysa Trading LLP, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2022-23 Lysa Trading Llp Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) Corporate House-2, Shilp Vs Ahmedabad. Corporate Park Rajpath Rangoli Road Bodakdev Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaifl 3030 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 250Section 270A

Rs.17,08,908 towards Common Area Maintenance charges despite the fact that such recovery is not in nature of income and not liable to tax under provisions of the Act. It be so held now. 3. The learned AO as well as CIT(A) erred in facts