“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

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

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

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

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

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

ITA 105/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.105/Ahd/2023 & 106/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Respectively Rajendra Maganbhai Patel The Asstt.Commissioner Of बनाम/ C-1/8, Bhadran Nagar Income Tax, Circle V/S. S.V. Road, Malad West International Taxation, Mumbai – 400 064 Vadodara Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 5675 N (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh N. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : 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/O R D E R 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 Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR

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 is not in dispute

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Cir.2(1), Mumbai. vs. Riya Travel and Tours (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4193/MUM/2023[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 194Section 250

applies only to the participants who are resident of India and therefore payment made towards booking of tickets of foreign airlines which are liable to tax outside India does not come under the preview of TDS payments which are made to BSP IATA. The ld. AO substantiated this by stating ... commerce operator under sub- section (1), or which is not liable to deduction under sub-section (2), shall not be liable to tax deduction at source under any other provision of this Chapter: Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any amount or aggregate

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)Cir.2(1), Mumbai. vs. Riya Travel and Tours (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4191/MUM/2023[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 194Section 250

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Cir.2(1), Mumbai. vs. Riya Travel and Tours (India) Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4172/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 194Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur vs. Sonu Monu Agro Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

ITA 62/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A(1)

expenses and depreciation and other example by taking 100% of revenue expenses and depreciation and then taking 40% proportionate income as business income liable to tax. In both cases Hon'ble Supreme Court found that only 40% of total allowable depreciation at prescribed rates is actually allowed and only such

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(International Taxation) Circle-2(2) Bengaluru, Bangalore vs. U L India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

have erred in not appreciating that section 195 of the Act requires withholding of taxes only if the payments are liable to tax in India. 5. The Learned AO & CIT(A) have erred in concluding that the payments towards testing charges constitutes FTS/FIS despite the fact that testing services provided

M/S. Ul India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1136/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 250

Sanjivani Cheritable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 406/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2012-13 Sanjivani Charitable Trust Vs. The Ito, Ward-7(2)(1) Tenament No.8 Ahmedabad. Isanpur Park Society Nr.Municipal Garden Naroda, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaits 6269 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin S. Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 139Section 148Section 250(6)

also, to file their return ITA No.406 /Ahd/2024 6 of income, if their income, without claiming exemption exceeds maximum limit, which is not liable to tax. Section 139(4C) of the Act, therefore, only mandates the filing of the return of income in specified circumstances by entities claiming their incomes

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-(4)(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Stantec Uk Limited, United Kingdom

Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of CIT(A). The grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed

ITA 6735/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain(Virtually Present) /For Respondent: 11.02.2025

Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA the fees received by the assessee-company was not liable to tax in India. On perusal of the material on record, it is observed that during the year under consideration the assessee has provided various corporate services

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-(4)(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Stantec Uk Limited, United Kingdom

Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of CIT(A). The grounds raised by the revenue in this regard are dismissed

ITA 6734/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain(Virtually Present) /For Respondent: 11.02.2025

Siemens Mobility Gmbh, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax), 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

same as not taxable in India. The assessee submitted that the transfer of goods happened outside India and hence the receipts are not liable to tax in India. The AO however, did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to make an addition by applying 5% of total ... assessee are not acceptable. Therefore, it is hereby held that the revenues stated to be emanating from the off-shore supply contract are liable to tax in India in the hands of the Association of Persons (AOP) formed by the assessee Siemens Mobility Gmbh and Siemens (India) Limited 4.8 During

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1347/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1347/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Visteon Corporation Dcit बनाम/ Grace Lake Corporation Centre, International Taxation Van Buren Township Circle-2(2), Vs. Michigan – 48111 Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aadcv-5660-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) & Shri Ajay Vohra (Senior Advocate) – Ld. Ars (Through Virtual Mode ) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Jyotsna Sivakumar (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vii)

held as ‘make available’ and such technical services would not fall within the definition of technical services in term of DTAA and not liable to tax. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka observed as under:- “14. Therefore, the clause in the Singapore agreement which explicitly makes it clear

Janardan Prasad, Patna vs. CIT (A), Patna

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

ITA 371/PAT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

offered by the recipients to tax as their income. The Assessing Officer will also consider the fact as to whether the recipients are liable to tax or whether their incomes are below the taxable limit. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

heed income from Business and instead upholding finding recorded by the ld AO that the said income is allegedly appellants undisclosed income liable to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the ld CIT (A) is also wrong and has erred

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

legal position, rejected the plea of the Assessee holding that dividend income received by the Assessee from Alexandria Carbon Black Company would be liable to tax in India. 12. 2. The facts and circumstances prevailing in the Assessment Year 2006-07 are identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year ... registered in Egypt (U.A.R.). By way of additional ground under consideration the Assessee has claimed that the aforesaid dividend income was not liable to tax in India. Though the aforesaid claim has been raised as an additional ground, the same is admitted since it involves a question of law which

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

legal position, rejected the plea of the Assessee holding that dividend income received by the Assessee from Alexandria Carbon Black Company would be liable to tax in India. 12.2. The facts and circumstances prevailing in the Assessment Year 2006-07 are identical to those prevailing in the Assessment Year ... registered in Egypt (U.A.R.). By way of additional ground under consideration the Assessee has claimed that the aforesaid dividend income was not liable to tax in India. Though the aforesaid claim has been raised as an additional ground, the same is admitted since it involves a question of law which

Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Mdda, Transport Nagar Dehradun vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 96/DDN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 43B

appellant assessee had not hadthe exclusive authority over utilization of the Infrastructure Fund. Therefore, it was argued that the same was not liable to tax keeping in view the principle of diversion of income by overriding title. To buttress the arguments, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the decision

Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, Mdda, Transport Nagar Dehradun vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department Dehradun

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as above

ITA 95/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 43B

DCIT CC 4 2 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5831/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 40

said payment is in the nature of fee for technical services. Thus, the gross revenue received by the payee being FTS is liable to tax and expenses cannot be allowed as deduction. He further noted that once the payment is fee for technical services then the theory of reimbursement

Mahanth Kumar Singh, Muzaffarpur vs. ITO, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 232/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 250Section 69A

commission for AY 2017-18 as is depicted in Form 26AS. Therefore the income of assessee liable to tax is only to the extent of Rs.67,742/- which being below taxable limit, no return was filed. Therefore the addition of Rs. 1,23,28,322/- shall be deleted. Further grounds