“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore., Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1196/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

from international organisations on most competitive terms, payment made to swiss company for rendering such consultancy services amounted to 'fee for technical service' liable to tax in India. The above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable to facts of the present case. In the above judgment

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Shamkant Keshav Kotkar, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2422/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ch. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801Section 801B(10)Section 80I

parking space on which builder has no title is illegal in the eye of law and this generates illegal income which though liable to tax is not eligible for deduction u/s 801B(10). 5 ITA.No.2422/PUN./2016 In the present case assessee had shown total income of Rs.4

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1171/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

Land Acquisition Collector created by Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioners, the amount of interest being not liable to tax, the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in deducting the tax at source. The issue is no more res Integra in view of same

Idfc First Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1170/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 147Section 148Section 263

Addl.CIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi vs. Vlcc Health Care Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4414/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekaddl.Cit, Special Range 9, Vs. Vlcc Health Care Ltd., New Delhi. M – 14, Commercial Complex, Greater Kailash Part Ii, New Delhi - 110 048. (Pan : Aaacc4808P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Ms. Rinky Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Order : 09.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 08.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2009 For The Ay 2009-10 Declaring An Income Of Rs.14,34,56,042. The Case Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 2 143(2) & 142 (1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Filed The Relevant Information As Called For. 3. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Slimming & Beauty Services. The Assessee Has Not Disclosed Any Other Source Of Income During The Year. During Assessment Proceedings, Ao Observed That The Assessee Is Carrying Substantial Credit Balances As Current Liabilities Under The Head ‘Advance From Customers’. The Assessee Was Asked To Explain Along With Supporting Documents. Assessee Vide Its Letter Dated 22.11.2011 Submitted As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 29

source at all. The said amount is neither interest, royalty, fees for professional and technical services nor rent or commission which is liable to tax deduction. The said amount is sharing of profit of the joint venture and therefore is not covered under the provisions of tax deduction at source ... enclosed. 16 In view of the above judgment, it is clear that the payment of share of profit to collaborator is not liable to tax deduction at source. Further the assessing officer has not mentioned in the assessment order the section under which the tax is required to be deducted

Babosa Corporation, Bhiwandi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

The appeal is allowed with above direction

ITA 2548/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2015-16 Babosa Corporation, Income Tax Officer, Survey No. 53, Hissa Ward-1(1), No.14, Mohan Plaza, Babosa Industrial Vs. Kalyan - 421301 Complex, Mouje Saravali, Bhiwandi-421302 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aakfb 9103D Assessee By Shri Pankaj R. Toprani & Ms. Krupa P. Toprani Revenue By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. (Dr), 29Th July, 2024 Date Of Hearing 08Th October 2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143Section 43C

rendered in context of wealth tax to state that the value of house under construction including investment on construction is not liable to tax because incomplete building does not fall within the ambit of A Y : 2015–16 Babosa Corporation, Versus Income Tax Officer Kalyan ‘assets’ under section

Crystal Glazing & Cladding, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Pune

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

ITA 93/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 37(1)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

proving the source of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him, if he disputes, it is not liable to tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation

Prabhati Devi, Dausa vs. ITO Ward Dausa, Dausa

ITA 1031/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250

Gujarat High court held that:- “S. 147 : Reassessment – Within four years – The basis of formation of belief by the AO that income liable to tax has escaped assessment must form part of reasons recorded by him – AO could not initiate reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of information supplied

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. Maa Raktdantika Contractors and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

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

ITA 437/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 28(2)(i)Section 68

income of the assessee for the year. If the amount has already been declared as part of the total income forming income liable to tax there would be no occasion for the AO to tax, the same again, the reason being the same has already been included in the income

M/S. Maa Rakltdantika Contractors and Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Range-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 384/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 28(2)(i)Section 68

Visteon Corporation, Michigan vs. DCIT, Intenl Taxn, Circle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 258/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Ajoy Vohra, Sr. Advocate (By Virtual), Ms. Jyotsma Sivakumar and Shri. AdiFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147

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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Mangalore vs. Karnataka Bank Limited., Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

M/S. Karnataka Bank Limited, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle- 2(1), Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. Navratan Vidha Mandir Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

carrying of its charitable or religious activities. Then such an income falls under section 11(1)(d) of Income tax Act and not liable to tax. Therefore, it is not necessary that a voluntary contribution should be made with a specific direction to treat is a corpus. If the intention

Robinson Memorial Methodist Marathi Central Church, Mumbai vs. DIT, CPC, Bangaluru

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose in terms of paragraph 6 above

ITA 764/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Anuj KisanadwalaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana

Section 143(1)

collection of INR 41,56,267/-. Thus, without prejudice to the contentions of the Appellant that voluntary donation and interest income were not liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant, the Assessing Officer have only brought net surplus of INR 1,84,472/- in the hands

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, The Principal Commissioner Of 1, Paras Society, Neminathnagar Income-Tax-4, Vs. Road, Deesa, Gujarat-385535 Ahmedabad Pan : Afops 0131 D अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad [Herein- After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 03.03.2020, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Registry Has Noted The Present Appeal To Be Barred By Limitation By 1355 Days. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Explained That There Was, In Fact, No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal For The Reason That The Assessee Had Inadvertently Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit Before The Surat Bench Of The Itat Which, When The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before It, Passed A Judicial Order Dated 21.11.2023 Dismissing The Appeal As Withdrawn, Noting The Fact That The Correct Jurisdiction Lay With The 2 Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi Vs. Pcit Ay : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT-DR

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 54F

making the assessee, as per the Ld.PCIT, ineligible to exemption/deduction u/s 54F of the Act and also rental income from the same being liable to tax. 4.3 Having perused the order of the Ld.PCIT and after considering the arguments made by both the parties before us, we hold the impugned ... contended therefore that, even as per law, Incomes from residential houses held as stock in trade were not liable to tax under the head Income from house property in the impugned year i.e. A.Y 2015-16, and therefore did not qualify as “residential house” as per Section 54F. 9 Shri

Income Tax Officer 23 2 1 Mumbai, Piramal Chambers Lalbaug Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Board of Technichal Education, Bandra East, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4243/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 10(46)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 250Section 4

treated as not pressed and resultantly dismissed being not pressed. 23. Ground Nos.5 to 10 relates to if the assessee is not liable to tax being as State under Article 289 of the Constitution of India and engaged in public utility services. The Assessing Officer after re-opening

Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education, Bandra East, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4229/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 10(46)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 250Section 4

Academy for Global Education Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3860/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, SR. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 250

shares are allotted at premium even though Company is making losses. We further noted that that share application money is a capital receipt liable to tax under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act as deeming receipt of consideration for issue of shares in excess of face value in certain

Ishwar Education and Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust is allowed

ITA 1479/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1479/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. TareFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(d)Section 147Section 148ASection 164Section 164(2)Section 2

proviso inserted to sub-section (2) of section 164 has no application. Therefore, the income of the appellant trust is liable to tax, as if it were the income of AOP, not at the Maximum Marginal rate of tax. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant trust stands allowed