← 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

Sri Venakteswara Swamy Devastanam, Jamalapuram vs. ITO., Exemption Ward1- (3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1003/HYD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

For Appellant: Advocate E Hari BabuFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 11

that the assessee temple is managed by Endowment Commissioner as per the provisions of the Endowment Act and therefore, Endowment Temples are not liable to tax as per section 10(23BBA) of the Act. He has further submitted that the Endowment run temple is nothing but a state government created ... Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam temple is not entitled for the benefit of section 10(23BBA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and liable to tax. 9. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee temple is managed by the Endowment Commissioner, an authority

Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam, Jamalapuram vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1002/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

For Appellant: Advocate E Hari BabuFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 11

that the assessee temple is managed by Endowment Commissioner as per the provisions of the Endowment Act and therefore, Endowment Temples are not liable to tax as per section 10(23BBA) of the Act. He has further submitted that the Endowment run temple is nothing but a state government created ... Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam temple is not entitled for the benefit of section 10(23BBA) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and liable to tax. 9. We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. The assessee temple is managed by the Endowment Commissioner, an authority

The Malnad Arecanut Syndicate Private Limited, Shimoga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri. Madhu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143Section 194Q

receipts is only allowable. The assessee submitted that the sales from which tax is deducted under section 194Q of the Act is not liable to tax. Therefore, the entire turnover wa not disclosed in the income tax return. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), the CIT(A) noted that

Rao Bahadur Dharmaparavartha Gubbi Thotadappas Charities, Bengaluru vs. ITO(Exemptions) Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 285/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Dr. N Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(a)

Page 3 of 8 the amount of ₹3,08,37,605 (i.e., ₹2,74,90,419 + ₹36,78,744 - ₹3,31,611) was liable to tax under section 11(3) of the Act. 6. The AO also observed that a similar issue had arisen in the assessee’s own case

M/S Chatta Sugar Co. Ltd, Mathura vs. A.C.I..T Circle-3, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

meet the managerial and rental expenses the subsidy receipt would be to meet the actual expenses of the assessee and thus, would be liable to tax. 16. Similarly, Hon'ble Madras High Court in Triplicane Urban Cooperative Society Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 125 (Mad), held: That where

Palam Rural Centre, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1560/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. Edser Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 139

above ITAT order, if the assessee Trust is denied to claim section 11 & 12 exemption of the Act, then the assessee will be liable to tax only on the net income and not on the gross receipts of the Trust. :-12-: ITA No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 14. In assessee

Jt. Cti (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 791/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

learned CIT(A) vide paragraph no. 62 of this order i.e. impugned sales tax benefit are in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. Thus, the question arises that a receipt which is not taxable under the normal provision of the Act can be made subject to tax

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 516/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

learned CIT(A) vide paragraph no. 62 of this order i.e. impugned sales tax benefit are in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. Thus, the question arises that a receipt which is not taxable under the normal provision of the Act can be made subject to tax

The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2224/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

learned CIT(A) vide paragraph no. 62 of this order i.e. impugned sales tax benefit are in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. Thus, the question arises that a receipt which is not taxable under the normal provision of the Act can be made subject to tax

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2008/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

learned CIT(A) vide paragraph no. 62 of this order i.e. impugned sales tax benefit are in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. Thus, the question arises that a receipt which is not taxable under the normal provision of the Act can be made subject to tax

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2007/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

learned CIT(A) vide paragraph no. 62 of this order i.e. impugned sales tax benefit are in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. Thus, the question arises that a receipt which is not taxable under the normal provision of the Act can be made subject to tax

Alamelu Memorial Charitable Trust, Thiruvallur vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 814/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.814/Chny/2025 Alamelu Memorial Charitable Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 46, 2Nd Street, Sp Munusamy [Exemptions], Nagar, Gnt Road, Thervazhi, Chennai. Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur 601 201. [Pan:Aaita6393E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Nandha Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Nandha Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 12ASection 4Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

provide that the accreted income of the trusts not applying for registration/ approval, within the specified time, shall be made liable to tax in accordance with the provisions of section 115TD. This amendment has 5 I.T.A. No.814/Chny/25 come into effect from 01.04.2023 and therefore applies to assessment year ... apply for approval/ registration under the first or the second regime within the required time. Accreted income of the trusts would have become liable to tax under section 115TD of the Act if the application had not been made by 25.11.2022 or 30.09.2022, as the case may be. In order

Steven Angelo Pinto, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted

ITA 922/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Steven Angelo Pinto, Income Tax Officer, A-11, Tahnee Heights, (International Taxation)-3(3)(2) Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400006. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan : Aihpp2373C Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar (Virtually Present) Shri Ruturaj Gurjar Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, J.Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2025

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, J.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 69A

whatsapp message was sent on 30-08-2021 which falls during the financial year relevant to the impugned assessment year, the amount is liable to tax for the year under consideration. We find that even in the report of the Investigation Wing, there is a reference to the whatsapp message

The Executor of Sobhagmal M Patni (Deceased ), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2774/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Executor Of Sobhagmal M Income-Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(1), Patni Deceased Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. 42A, Jolly Maker Apartment-I, Mumbai-400051. Cuffe Parade, Colaba, S.O. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaaae 6964 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Vinit Shah
Section 143(1)

with a view to curbing tax avoidance through the medium of such trusts: medium of such trusts: (i) A discretionary trust will be liable to tax at the maximum A discretionary trust will be liable to tax at the maximum A discretionary trust will be liable to tax ... tax on their entire income. As a result, the entire income of a dis the entire income of a discretionary trust will be liable to tax at cretionary trust will be liable to tax at the maximum marginal rate of income the maximum marginal rate of income-tax including surcharge

DCIT(It)-3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Murex Southeast Asia Private Limited, Singapore

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

make available any technical skills, knowledge, or expertise etc., which enable Indian customer to apply the technology contained therein and hence, not liable to tax in India. The appellant has submitted that the facts and agreements considered by the ITAT in delivering the order for AY 2018-19 remain identical

Mr. 3 Sigma Global Fund, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we hold that the gain arising from the transfer of Derivatives cannot be taxed in India and the addition made in this regard stands deleted. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is hereb...

ITA 1130/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Bhaumik Goda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

Tax Treaty, income arising to a resident of UAE from transfer of property other than shares in an Indian company, are liable to tax only in UAE. On the other hand, Article 13(4) of the Tax Treaty provides that income arising to a resident of UAE from transfer ... tax treaty, STCG arising from sale of units of equity oriented mutual funds and debt oriented mutual funds should not be liable to tax in India in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(5) of the tax treaty. 6.4 Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Mumbai

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1726/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 68

that some income has been accrued or arisen in a particular assessment year but there is some uncertainty about the person who is liable to tax. In other word this concept cannot be applied in cases where it cannot be established beyond that the income has accrued or arises ... been established beyond that the certain income accrued or arisen in a particular assessment year but there is uncertainty regarding the person liable to tax. Indeed, the provision of section 68 of the Act triggered when any sum credited in the books of an assessee and that assessee fails explain

Ashish Garg, Noida vs. ACIT Central Circle -2, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

ITA 1725/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 68

that some income has been accrued or arisen in a particular assessment year but there is some uncertainty about the person who is liable to tax. In other word this concept cannot be applied in cases where it cannot be established beyond that the income has accrued or arises ... been established beyond that the certain income accrued or arisen in a particular assessment year but there is uncertainty regarding the person liable to tax. Indeed, the provision of section 68 of the Act triggered when any sum credited in the books of an assessee and that assessee fails explain

Essar Communications Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle-1 (2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

India-Mauritius DTAA. Accordingly, the capital gains that have arisen to it on the sale of shares of VEL are not liable to tax in India. 76. At the time of hearing, ld. ASG, Shri N. Venkatraman Sr. Advocate submitted that the issue involved in both the appeals, viz., Essar

Essar Com Limited, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

India-Mauritius DTAA. Accordingly, the capital gains that have arisen to it on the sale of shares of VEL are not liable to tax in India. At the time of hearing, ld. ASG, Shri N. Venkatraman Sr. Advocate submitted that the issue involved in both the appeals, viz., Essar Communications