← 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

Nataraj Ramaiah, Chennai vs. ITO International Tax Ation Ward 2(1), Chennai

ITA 849/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Nataraj Ramaiah, V. International Taxation No. 25, Kothari Road, Ward -2(1), Nungambakkam – 600 034. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaapr-5280-R] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee By : None ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 50CSection 74

considering the sale of agricultural land by the assessee as sale of Capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Act, liable to tax under the head capital gain is against the law and has :-8-: ITA. No:849/Chny/2024 prayed for setting aside the same by allowing the appeal

Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1036/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Tamilnadu Industrial The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Limited, V. Income Tax, 19-A, Rukminilakshmipathy Road, Corporate Circle 3(1), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aaact-3409-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234CSection 28Section 43Section 43B

rupees, establishes that the assessee is also engaged in the business of financial company. Therefore, the interest earned by the assessee company is liable to tax under the provisions of the Interest Tax Act. In view of our finding that the assessee is a credit institution falling within the definition

DCIT, Intl. Taxn., Circle 1(2), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1414/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal’s decision (rendered for AY 2014- 15) in Assessee’s own case, wherein it was held that income towards AMC is not liable to tax in India. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, this issue came for consideration before this

DCIT, Circle 1(2) (Intl. Taxn.), Blr, Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1413/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal’s decision (rendered for AY 2014- 15) in Assessee’s own case, wherein it was held that income towards AMC is not liable to tax in India. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, this issue came for consideration before this

DCIT, Circle 1(2), (Intl. Taxn.), Bangalore vs. Blue Yonder Inc., Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1412/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

Tribunal’s decision (rendered for AY 2014- 15) in Assessee’s own case, wherein it was held that income towards AMC is not liable to tax in India. 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, this issue came for consideration before this

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

that the courts, including the Apex Court, have held that, the subsidies received by the assessees were capital in nature and therefore not liable to tax. In the circumstances, therefore, inclusion of such capital receipt in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB would defeat two fundamental principles. Firstly ... result of the companies. As held in the preceding paras, the subsidies received by the assessee were capital in nature and therefore not liable to tax. In the circumstances therefore, inclusion of such capital receipt in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB would defeat two fundamental principles. Firstly

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

that the courts, including the Apex Court, have held that, the subsidies received by the assessees were capital in nature and therefore not liable to tax. In the circumstances, therefore, inclusion of such capital receipt in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB would defeat two fundamental principles. Firstly ... result of the companies. As held in the preceding paras, the subsidies received by the assessee were capital in nature and therefore not liable to tax. In the circumstances therefore, inclusion of such capital receipt in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB would defeat two fundamental principles. Firstly

Amros Engineering Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(4), Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 823/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 134A

income, with respect to which he has entertained "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment, did not escape, or that it was not liable to tax, then merely because he had initiated proceedings, would not confer on him the continued jurisdiction, to assess the other incomes, which have come

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

that the penalty charges are received on account of contractual obligation in respect of capital goods and accordingly constitute a capital receipt not liable to tax. 81. This issue is recurring in nature and has been decided in favour of assessee in A.Y. 1993-94 to 2002-03. We observe

Micro Focus Software Inc., Usa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(2), International Taxation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4768/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrimicro Focus Software Inc. V/S. Dcit,(International Tax) बनाम (Formerly Known As Novell Circle 3(2)(2), Inc.) 16Th Floor, Air India Laurel, Block D, 65/2, Building, Nariman Point, Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Mumbai-400021 Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore, Karnataka, India- 560093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcn5034F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234ASection 270A

these circumstances that it was held that the advertisement revenue received by the Appellant may be from the customers in India is not liable for tax in India. That CBDT Circulars are binding needs no repetition. If authorities need be cited. We may now refer to the judgment ... only contention advanced and which found favour with the Tribunal was that the advertisement revenue received by the assessee was also income liable to tax in India. The CIT(A) relied upon Circular Noha23 of 1969. That Circular read with Article 7(1) (would result in holding that advertisement revenue

General Motors Overses Disribution Coporation, Usa vs. ACIT Circle International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2360/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP has erred in holding that since the Appellant is an LLC and not liable to tax in the US hence it is not eligible to benefits of the DTAA. ITA Nos.2359-2360/Del/2022 6. That on the facts and circumstances ... reply dated 2.11.2020 as considered in the assessment order is reproduced herein below:- “In relation to the fiscal situation relating to ‘liable to tax', it is submitted that under the US income tax law, an LLC is given an option to either be taxed as a corporation or be taxed

General Motors Company, Usa vs. ACIT Circlr International Taxation 1(3)(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 General Motors Company Usa, Vs Acit, Circle International 1209 Orange Street, Taxation 1(3)(1), Wilmington Delaware New Delhi – 110 002 United States, Zip Code - 19801 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 General Motors Overseas Vs Acit, Circle International Distribution Corporation, Usa Taxation 1(3)(1), 2711, Centreville Roadnew Castle New Delhi – 110 002 County, Wilmington, Usa-19808 (Pan: Aaecg5571H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv., Shri Ss Tomar, Adv. & Shri Sumeet Hemkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri VishalFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 148Section 234BSection 234c

circumstances of the case and in law, the AO / DRP has erred in holding that since the Appellant is an LLC and not liable to tax in the US hence it is not eligible to benefits of the DTAA. ITA Nos.2359-2360/Del/2022 6. That on the facts and circumstances ... reply dated 2.11.2020 as considered in the assessment order is reproduced herein below:- “In relation to the fiscal situation relating to ‘liable to tax', it is submitted that under the US income tax law, an LLC is given an option to either be taxed as a corporation or be taxed

M/S. Sabarmati Gas Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 368/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Sabarmati Gas Ltd. The Ld.Pr.Cit Plot No.907, Sector 21 Vs Ahmedabad-3. Gandhinagar 382 021 Pan : Aakcs 0110 N

For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40

applying the higher rate of depreciation and the depreciation short claimed in preceding years as a consequence was claimed while computing the profits liable to tax for the impugned year as prior period depreciation, which worked out to Rs. 1,68,21,472/-. 5. The case of the ld.Pr.CIT

Abhishek Khandelwal, Ajmer vs. ITO WD-2(2), Ajmer

ITA 582/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
For Respondent: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Th. V.C.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Yashvant Soma Gawade, Bhandup West Mumbai vs. 28(3)(5), Navi Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1643/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Firoz B Andhyarujina, Sr. Advocate along with Sh. Sanjay H PawarFor Respondent: Mrs. Beena Santosh
Section 144Section 147

well as Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) ignored the fact that assessee was working in USA and therefore his income is not liable to tax in India and made addition to his total income without considering residential status of the assessee and source of income for investment in property

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 7745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: disregarding the ALP determined by the Appellant and proceeded to determine the ALP himself.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawana Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3498/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: him in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4.1 That on facts and in law the AO erred in ado tin the figure of Taxable Capital Gains at Rs.6,98,80,603/- instead of Rs.6,90,79,603/-.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

erred in upholding that the sum of Rs.11 crores (received by the assessee on account of sale of Trade Mark) was liable to tax. 1.1 That on facts the CIT(A) erred in observing that the consideration of Rs 11 crores was received by the assessee a account ... crore (or part thereof ) was received on account of non-compete covenant under the agreement then too it is capital receipt not liable to tax. Apex Court in case of Gufic Chem (P) Ltd 332 ITR 602(SC) has held that not to carry on a business is capital receipt

Mawana Sugars Limited., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4519/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 43B

erred in upholding that the sum of Rs.11 crores (received by the assessee on account of sale of Trade Mark) was liable to tax. 1.1 That on facts the CIT(A) erred in observing that the consideration of Rs 11 crores was received by the assessee a account ... crore (or part thereof ) was received on account of non-compete covenant under the agreement then too it is capital receipt not liable to tax. Apex Court in case of Gufic Chem (P) Ltd 332 ITR 602(SC) has held that not to carry on a business is capital receipt

Sarita Gupta, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 662/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

income of M/s Sahil Paints earned from undisclosed sources during the year under consideration. The ld. AO has ordered the said income liable to taxed under as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act but did not compute the tax in accordance with that provision of the Act. Therefore

Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 661/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No.644/JP/2024 on the following grounds; "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2. The Ld. PCIT has erred on facts and in law in holding that the

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT(Central), Jaipur issued show cause notice u/s 263 dt. 07.03.2024 stating that excess stock of Rs.15,21,176/- is liable to tax u/s 69 of the Act chargeable to tax u/s 115BBE but AO has failed to do so. Thus the order passed by AO is erroneous