← 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

Shakuntala Balvantrai Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 3/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 164(1)Section 167BSection 250

grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant Trust was liable to tax at MMR though it is the only discretionary trust settled under the WILL of Late Shakuntala Balvantray. 1.4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... grievously erred in upholding that the appellant Trust was liable to tax at MMR though it is the only discretionary trust settled under the WILL of Late Shakuntala Balvantray. 1.5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought

Shakuntala Balvantrai Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as

ITA 2/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 164(1)Section 167BSection 250

grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant Trust was liable to tax at MMR though it is the only discretionary trust settled under the WILL of Late Shakuntala Balvantray. 1.4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... grievously erred in upholding that the appellant Trust was liable to tax at MMR though it is the only discretionary trust settled under the WILL of Late Shakuntala Balvantray. 1.5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought

Shakuntala Balvantrai Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (Exmp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 1/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member), Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 164Section 164(1)Section 167BSection 250

grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding that the appellant Trust was liable to tax at MMR though it is the only discretionary trust settled under the WILL of Late Shakuntala Balvantray. 1.4 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... grievously erred in upholding that the appellant Trust was liable to tax at MMR though it is the only discretionary trust settled under the WILL of Late Shakuntala Balvantray. 1.5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

fact that assessee is liable for withholding tax on foreign company/ party payment only if the foreign company/ party's income is liable to tax in India. The Appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds ... sums payable to non-resident are chargeable to tax in India. Therefore, the remittance to non- residents/ foreign companies are not liable to tax in India unless the income of non-residents or foreign companies are liable to tax in India as per the provision of the Act. 4.3 Further

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 448/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

Please refer Para No. 15 & 16]. 5.8 Further, it may please be noted that NKIL and NKPL are companies and are liable to tax @ 30% with surcharge. NKIL has returned the loss. Whereas NKPL has returned the profit and paid the taxies thereon meaning by there is no question ... Officer held that the credit balances written back was the income of the assessee that arose out of the business activity and hence, liable to tax under Section 28. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons and upheld the contention of the Revenue. Before the High Court

N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 447/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

Please refer Para No. 15 & 16]. 5.8 Further, it may please be noted that NKIL and NKPL are companies and are liable to tax @ 30% with surcharge. NKIL has returned the loss. Whereas NKPL has returned the profit and paid the taxies thereon meaning by there is no question ... Officer held that the credit balances written back was the income of the assessee that arose out of the business activity and hence, liable to tax under Section 28. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons and upheld the contention of the Revenue. Before the High Court

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 443/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

Please refer Para No. 15 & 16]. 5.8 Further, it may please be noted that NKIL and NKPL are companies and are liable to tax @ 30% with surcharge. NKIL has returned the loss. Whereas NKPL has returned the profit and paid the taxies thereon meaning by there is no question ... Officer held that the credit balances written back was the income of the assessee that arose out of the business activity and hence, liable to tax under Section 28. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons and upheld the contention of the Revenue. Before the High Court

The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1)., Ahmedabad vs. N.K. Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 442/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NK Industries Ltd (Cross Appeals)
Section 250

Please refer Para No. 15 & 16]. 5.8 Further, it may please be noted that NKIL and NKPL are companies and are liable to tax @ 30% with surcharge. NKIL has returned the loss. Whereas NKPL has returned the profit and paid the taxies thereon meaning by there is no question ... Officer held that the credit balances written back was the income of the assessee that arose out of the business activity and hence, liable to tax under Section 28. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons and upheld the contention of the Revenue. Before the High Court

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Il and Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1694/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Limited, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Below Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Appellant Assessee & Revenue For Ay-2018-19 Contesting The Order Of Ld. First Appellate Authority Indicated In Column-E, Herein Below:- S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appellant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F 1

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार गिरि

Il&Fs Tamilnadu Power Company Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1332/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri.Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT

every year after amendment to section 43A with effect from 1-4-2003 and gain arising on account of exchange fluctuation is not liable to tax as it is on capital account. This case law is about external commercial borrowing for the purpose of acquiring capital asset

Amol Prabhakar Bonde, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 529/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.529/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amol Prabhakar Bonde, V The Income Tax Officer, Near Bus Stand Pimpalevada, S Ward-2(1), Jalgaon. Bhalod, Tal Yawal, Jalgaon – 425304. Maharashtra. Pan: Asfpb8568F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 31.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Making Addition (Ld.Cit-A Erred In Confirming The Same) Of Rs.32,00,000/- As Income From Other Sources Instead Of Treating It As Agriculture Income Not Liable To Tax.

Section 250

erred in confirming the same) of Rs.32,00,000/- as Income from Other Sources instead of treating it as agriculture income not liable to tax. ITA No.529/PUN/2025 [A] 2. The Ld.AO erred in making addition (Ld.CIT-A erred in confirming) of an amount which is not actually received/earned

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.786/Kol/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2008-2009) Essel Mining & Industries Vs Addl. Cit, Range-5, Kolkata Limited, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street,Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aaace6607L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Akkaldudhwewala, Fca राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal After The Hon'Ble Calcutta High Court Vide Order Dated 17.11.2021 Passed In The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed U/S 260A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Ia No. Ga/1/2017 (Old No. Ga/247/2017) In Ita 5/274/2017 Referred The Issue Back To The Tribunal For Fresh Consideration To Decide The Legal Issue In The Light Of Decision By Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Saurashtra Cements Ltd. (2010) 325 Itr 422 (Sc) After Affording Both The Sides A Fair & Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing. The Hon'Ble High Court Directed The Tribunal To Decide Whether Compensation Received By The Assessee From Suzlon Energy Limited On Account Of Failure Of Performance Guarantee Parameters Of The Capital Assets Namely Wind Turbine Generators, Was On Revenue Account For Reducing Loss Incurred In The Course Of Business Or A Capital Receipt Outside The Purview Of Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri AkkalDudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 43

that the compensation received from M/s Suzlon Energy Limited (SEL) amounting to Rs. 19.28 crores was in the nature of capital receipt, not liable to tax, and therefore requested the AO to exclude the same while assessing the total income. The AO observed that, this contention of the assessee ... whether the compensation received for under-performance of the WTGs installed by SEL was revenue in nature or capital receipt not liable to tax. The Hon’ble Court had observed that, the manner in which this Tribunal had earlier interpreted the decision of Saurashtra Cement Limited (supra) to come

Mantra Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6273/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Institute of Chartered Accountant of India (ICAI). This marked-to-market gain on forward exchange contract is a notional gain and is not liable to tax under the Act even though credited to the profit and loss account which is more so for the purpose of accounting and disclosure

Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele (Legal Heir of Late. Thaksen Sopan Bankhele), Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(2), Pune

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

ITA 475/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.475/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele V The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Thaksen S Ward-10(2), Pune. Sopan Bankhele), Sai Namdeo Park, Flat No.12 B-Ii, Near Mhadha Housing Society, Morwadi, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Agfpb8295D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 196, Ludhiana 23.02.2024For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250o

Agriculture Land NIL not considered as Capital Asset in terms of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and therefore, not liable to tax. 3. The Ld. AO erred in (Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming) in applying the provision of section 2(47)(v) and considering the Capital

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

immovable property on 26th April, 1991, but on the advise of his advocate the assessee has claimed that capital gain is not liable to tax. An affidavit is given on oath by the advocate stating that in fact by his mistake the assessee has shown 'long-term capital gain ... imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty of the AO to ask further details and tax income if it is liable to tax and that has been done in this case. In view of these facts on record, there is no reason to sustain the order

Priti Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

required to get her account audited and to file return of income as the income of the person with Sikkim domicile is not liable to tax u/s.10(26) of the Act. Admittedly, the assesee has not filed any return of income or got her account audited which was done after

Priti Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

required to get her account audited and to file return of income as the income of the person with Sikkim domicile is not liable to tax u/s.10(26) of the Act. Admittedly, the assesee has not filed any return of income or got her account audited which was done after

Marie Products Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

assesee had made unaccounted production from unaccounted sources of purchases of raw materials The same is liable to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, 196 271AAC (1) of the IT Act is initiated SY DEPARTME proceedings u/s separately. 8.4 During the appellate proceedings

Shell International B.V., Netherlands vs. The Asstt.CIT., Circle(Intnl.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, we hold that the above services did not qualify as FTS under the

ITA 1027/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2025AY 2021-22
Section 143Section 153

Supreme Court held that payment made to Swiss company for rendering such consultancy services amounted to 'fee for technical service' liable to tax in India. The Hon'ble SC observed that as the factual matrix in the case at hand would exposit, NRC had acted as a consultant ... hence since, there is no income element while rendering the aforesaid services, in absence of income element/profit element, the services are not liable to taxed as fee for technical services in India. Fourthly, it was argued that these services qualify as "managerial services" and since the definition

Shaju Raman Arangath, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shaju Raman Arangath Ito Ward 3(2) 502, Apollonia, Triveni Rani Mansion Laurel, Next To Rto Vs. 2Nd Floor Near Birla School Murbad Road Kalyan West Kalyan Maharashtra-421 301. Maharashtra-421301. Pan : Ammpa5973C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Mehta
Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 270ASection 285B

filed return of income nor paid any tax which is incorrect because the claim of the appellant is that he is not liable to tax in India and whatever income earned by him are only from Qatar and receipts were not taxable in India. 6. Anyhow