← 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

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1283/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1282, 1283, 1284 & 1285/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. V. The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.470, 1339, 1438, 1462 & 1463/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2018-19, 2011-12, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Dcit, Non Corporate Circle-8, Chennai. V. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2Nd Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aabcc 6633 K] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, Fca Department By : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

provisions u/s.195(1) of the Act says that remittance has got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is not assessable there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In our considered view, the basis

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 8, Chennai

ITA 1282/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40

provisions u/s.195(1) of the Act says that remittance has got to be treated as receipt, whole or part of which is liable to tax in India, if tax is not assessable there is no question of tax at source being deducted. In our considered view, the basis

Late S. Yogarathinam, Rep. by L/H Y. Shanmuga Durai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

assessee to demonstrate that the settlement deeds entered between assessee and his brother cannot be treated as transfer and hence not liable to tax under the Act. 1. Saravana Stores (Tex) order of tribunal in ITA No.2079/MDS/2008 2. ITA No.353 of 2011 dated 10.01.2013 of CIT vs Ashwani Chopra

Il&Fs Rail Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed, pro tanto

ITA 1288/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.994/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Kosi Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaick-6199-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1027/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Hoohly Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aafch-6609-C बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1070/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Luni Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaecl-5180-H बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002

Ireland DTAA, in light of the modified provisions of the India-Ireland DTAA, the amount received by the assessee/lessor of the aircraft is liable to tax in India. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 7. The key issues raised in the appeals have already been culled

Krishnaraj Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO-WD-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the AO is directed to delete the additions made of Rs

ITA 1387/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 131Section 139(4)Section 250Section 69A

also in the period/years prior to demonetization period is also not tenable, as the primary income being rent from agricultural land is not liable to tax [This fact has already been accepted by the AO as mentioned (supra)] and the assessee HUF does not have any other income liable

ITO, Ward-4(4), Gurgaon vs. Tribhawan Kumar Parnami, Gurgaon

ITA 2120/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 153A

that once the amount of sale consideration is crystalized and same is received by the sellers, the capital gain arises and same is liable to tax. The recovery of share of sale consideration from co-owner cannot be the ground to defer the taxation of capital gain. Accordingly, the appellant

Raziulla Syed, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 986/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195

Income Tax Act, 1961, as per sec.112A of the Act, long term capital gains on sale of equity shares shall be liable to tax @ 10% in excess of Rs.1,00,000/-. In 17 ITA.No.986/Hyd./2024 the present case, the assessee has long term capital gains of Rs.1339.22ps which

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5226/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 147Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

ITA 5225/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
Section 133ASection 147Section 148ASection 37(1)

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5224/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. Cec-Itd Cem-Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 5223/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2022-23
Section 133ASection 147Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Cec- Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 4681/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Cec - Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4680/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Cec- Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4679/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Cec-Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4678/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Cec- Itd Cem Tpl Joint Venture, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 4677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148A

that action. It is those set of reasons and which form the basis for the Assessing Officer forming an opinion that income liable to tax has escaped assessment alone which would merit examination and evaluation. A decision to reopen or reassess cannot be based or sought to be justified either

Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan vs. Kunal Comtrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3731/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

book. Both these entities have duly disclosed commodity trading in their financials. (x) Trade receivable by itself does not represent income which is liable to tax. The books of accounts were not rejected by Id. AO u/s. 145 of the Act. In such circumstances, trade receivable cannot be doubted

Income Tax Officer 10(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan vs. Kunal Comtrade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3730/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR

book. Both these entities have duly disclosed commodity trading in their financials. (x) Trade receivable by itself does not represent income which is liable to tax. The books of accounts were not rejected by Id. AO u/s. 145 of the Act. In such circumstances, trade receivable cannot be doubted

Rajendra Maganbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara

ITA 106/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar S.V. Road, Malad West Mumbai - 400 064 Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N बनाम / V/S. The Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation, Vadodara (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Revenue By : Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2015-16 & Are Directed Against The Final Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"] Under Section 147 R.W.S.144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]. The Core Issue In Both The Appeals Concerns The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Credits In The Assessee'S Non- Resident External (Nre) Bank Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, AR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

were correctly added as unexplained income by the AO, or whether the assessee has successfully explained those credits such that they are not liable to tax. 8. 1. At the outset, we note that the assessee's status as a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) during the year