← 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

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7487/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Australia & New Zealand Deputy Commissioner Of Banking Group Ltd. Income-Tax – 1(1)(2), Unit A, Sixth Floor, Mumbai Cnergy Centre, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Vs. Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 (Pan : Aaica3008P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order Dated 04.09.2018 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground 1: Determination Of The Arm'S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Relating To Processing Fees Received On Account Of Guarantees Issued To Indian Companies Based On Counter-Guarantee From Overseas Branches

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram K., Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Mumbai Branch Rs 16,73,234 Ground 6: Interest received by the Appellant/ overseas branches of the Appellant from ANZ Mumbai liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant under Article 11 of the India- Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement On the facts and in the circumstances ... that the interest received by the Appellant/ overseas branches of the Appellant from ANZ Mumbai amounting to Rs 2,98,64,616 is liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant under Article 11 of the India- Australia Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement 2.1. Assessee filed application for admission

Navalmal Firodia Memorial Hospital Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2460/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 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

Kaushal Ganpatbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Intl. Taxation), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: 04.02.2026
Section 147Section 5Section 5(2)(a)Section 6

which the all incomes of assesses being non-residents, received or deemed to be received in India is liable to tax in India. The case of the Revenue was that the receipt of salary in the NRE Account of the assessee tantamounted to receipt of salary in India and hence ... accordance with the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act the same was liable to tax in India. 5. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various decisions of Hon’ble High Court and the Coordinate Benches

Income Tax Officer, Dhule vs. Dharatidhan Fertilisers Limited, Dhule

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

ITA 773/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

stated that there is no provision in Income Tax Act as per which ‘share application money pending for more than one year’ is liable to tax. 5.3 I have carefully perused the balance sheet as on 31.03.2017 (i.e. relevant to A.Y.2017-18) wherein appellant has shown an amount of Rs.82

Hassan Power Supply Campany Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2181/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Hassan Power Supply Company Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No. 17, Sankey Road, Of Income Tax, Bengaluru, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. Karnataka – 560 020. Bengaluru. Pan: Aaach4163J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva prasad Reddy, ITP
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

written back by assessee or Page 2 of 6 those creditors, have been considered by the ld. AO as cessation of liability , liable to tax u/s 41(1) of the Act merely because those liabilities are outstanding for long time and in statement

DCIT Central Circle 1, New Delhi vs. Udai Shanker Awasthi, New Delhi

ITA 5347/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

behest of the assessee herein and since the assessee herein is a resident, the amounts collected overseas by his son would be liable to tax in India in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, substantive addition has been made in the hands of the assessee and protective addition has been

DCIT Central Circle 1, New Delhi vs. Udai Shanker Awasthi, New Delhi

ITA 5346/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

behest of the assessee herein and since the assessee herein is a resident, the amounts collected overseas by his son would be liable to tax in India in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, substantive addition has been made in the hands of the assessee and protective addition has been

DCIT, Central Circle 1, New Delhi vs. Udai Shanker Awasthi, New Delhi

ITA 5345/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

behest of the assessee herein and since the assessee herein is a resident, the amounts collected overseas by his son would be liable to tax in India in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, substantive addition has been made in the hands of the assessee and protective addition has been

DCIT, Central Circle 1, New Delhi vs. Udai Shankar Awasthi, New Delhi

ITA 5344/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 132Section 153CSection 68

behest of the assessee herein and since the assessee herein is a resident, the amounts collected overseas by his son would be liable to tax in India in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, substantive addition has been made in the hands of the assessee and protective addition has been

DCIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Udai Shanker Awasthi, New Delhi

ITA 4691/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Ms. Rinky Sharma, ITP Shri Anmol Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 132Section 153CSection 68

behest of the assessee herein and since the assessee herein is a resident, the amounts collected overseas by his son would be liable to tax in India in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, substantive addition has been made in the hands of the assessee and protective addition has been

Youcloud Dmcc, Dubai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram

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

ITA 1220/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(d)Section 201(1)

15CA/15CB in the case of Comviva, India, it was found that payments were in the nature of FTS, and the same were liable to tax in India as per provisions of the 1961 Act. The AO 2 further observed that the assessee has not filed return of income

Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 814/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 50C

assessee. Therefore, the AO had rightly held that the single transaction of sale of land made during the year was liable to tax under the head ‘capital gain’ and not under the head ‘business’. The Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that once the transaction of the assessee was liable ... inclined to interfere with the order of the AO that the income derived by the assessee on sale of land was liable to tax as short term capital Kamleshbhai Manubhai Patel Vs. DCIT, AY- 2012-13 8 gain. At the same time the invocation of provision of section

Ba Continuum India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 368/HYD/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

escaped assessment. c) There was no income which has escaped assessment as the reimbursements made by the Company to its AEs were not liable to tax in India and thus there was no requirement to withhold tax on such reimbursement and thus the said reimbursements were not liable

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ms. Jagson Colorchem Limited, Phase -II Gidc Estate Vatva

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1437/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years:2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 30Section 40

deducted. According to the assessee, commission payment of Rs.5,63,28,206/- was made for services rendered outside India, which was not liable to tax within the country and, therefore, no TDS was made thereon. However, the AO did not agree with the submissions of the assessee. He, therefore, disallowed

Babasaheb Sahebarav Jagdale, Masanarwadi Lingali Daund vs. Assessing Officer Ward 14(5), Aayakar Sadan Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park Gultekdi

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

ITA 2283/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: CIT(A) as per clause (b) Sec 246A of the IT Act, 1961. The Learned CIT(A) further erred to hold that Appellant should have filed Appeal to ITAT.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 146ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

investment u/s 69 and in treating it as undisclosed income. 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 and the notice under section 148 and the order under section 146A

Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Limited, Shimoga vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

hand there are certain judgments of the same Jurisdictional High Court which held that the interest received from Co-operative Bank/Commercial Bank are liable to tax u/s 56 of the Act under the head “ Income from other Sources” & these interest are even not liable for deduction even

Bharath Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore -1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

hand there are certain judgments of the same Jurisdictional High Court which held that the interest received from Co-operative Bank/Commercial Bank are liable to tax u/s 56 of the Act under the head “Income from other Sources” &these interest are even not liable for deduction even

Bsnl Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Pr. CIT, Hubballi

ITA 1108/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 263Section 56Section 80P

ITA No.1108/Bang/2025 M/s. BSNL Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Hubballi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6322/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 50C

less than the value determined by stamp duty valuation authority, ld. Assessing Officer noted that this has implication of section 50C making assessee liable to tax for the difference. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, since assessee has not filed the return of income and has not disclosed the sale

Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Mumbai vs. ITO (42)(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan

Appeal are disposed of partly in

ITA 4728/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44A

accountant in the form of remuneration, salary, interest on capital etc., if exceeds the threshold limits specified u/s 44AB, the tax payer is liable to tax audit. A broad interpretation of the 13 ITA no, 4728/MUM/2025 Hemant Kumar Agrawal said judgment, impliedly states that what should be considered