“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

Abhay Shaligram Patil, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 995/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13 Abhay Shaligram Patil Income Tax Officer- B-8/60, 23(1)(1), 1St Floor, M I G Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Room No. 106, Bandra (East), Matru Mandir, Mumbai- 400051. Grant Mandir, Pan: Abppp1649G Mumbai- 400007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar A/W. Shri Deep Chauchan, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w. Shri Deep Chauchan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 45Section 54Section 56

hardship compensation received by the assessee on account of hardship caused due to the redevelopment which is a capital receipt and hence not liable to tax. The Ld. AO then asked the assessee to showcause as to why this amount received from builder should not be assessed as income from ... hardship compensation is received by the assessee on account of hardship caused due to Re-development, which is a "Capital RECEIPT, "& HENCE "not liable to tax". FACTS & CITRCMSTANCES OF THE CASE: WITH REGARD TO JUDUCIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BASED ON PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 COMPENSATION FOR REDEVELOPMENT NOT TAXABLE

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Priti Bharat Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 447/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Ito-19(2)(4) Vs. Priti Bharat Parekh 507, 5Th Floor, Piramal 6C Landsend Chs 29 D Chambers, Parel, Dongersey Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Malabar Hill Maharashtra – 400006 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaepp1784C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 14.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Nfac) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Quashing The Reopening By The Ao With The Opinion That The Reopening Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law Without Appreciating That The Facts On Which The Reopening Was Done Are Not Available By The Ao At The Time Of Original Assessment 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That During The Course Of Investigation, It Was Found That The Scrips In Which The Assessee Traded Is Penny Stock Used For Providing Accommodation Entry Only In Form Of Bogus Ltcg & Stcg & Shared With The Jurisdiction Ao In The Fy 2020-21. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Penny Stock Transaction Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Has Entered

For Appellant: B.V. Jhaveri &For Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

7351/M/2008 dated 29/10/2010 6.22 Further, the provisions of sec 147 of the Act can be applied wherein in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the AO based on the principle that the taxpayer would

R1 Rcm Holdco Inc. (Formerly Known As R1 Rcm Inc.), Usa vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2044/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

industrial, scientific and technical equipment only. Therefore, receipts from Indian AE are in the form of industrial royalty Income and the same are liable to tax in India. You are hereby afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why the above receipts may not be taxed as royalty

Mixpanel Inc., Usa vs. ACIT Circle- 2(2)(1) Int.Taxation., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1996/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

technical knowledge is with-held, then, such a technical service would not fall within the definition of technical services in DTAA and not liable to tax.” “27. In the background of the aforesaid principles and facts of this case, it is clear that assessees acknowledge the services of Fugro

Itochu Corporation, Japan vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT( DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C

reduced to two core issues before the Panel for consideration: (a) Issue of permanent establishment: (b) Issue of attribution of income liable to tax in India 3.1 Existence of Permanent Establishment in India 3.1.1 The Assessing Officer has contended that the assessee made sales

Berlian Mcdermott Sdn. Bhd., Noida vs. Ac, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 479/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.479/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2020-21) Berlian Mcdermott N. Bhd. C/O Nangia & Co. Llp, A-109, Sector-136, Noida, Up 201304 Pan: Aagcb-6291-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 44B

India. The AO is directed to consider the submissions of the assessee and pass a speaking order on the amount of income liable to tax as income attributable to the PE of the assessee during the relevant AY, keeping in view the provisions of section 44BB

Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 9, New Delhi

Accordingly, ground Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are allowed subject to the above directions

ITA 8135/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumartupperware India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Spl. Range 9, 204 – 206, Tolstoy House, New Delhi. 15, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaact3770D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 25.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 26.10.2018 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Ld. Drp For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafrul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

contended that being pure reimbursement in nature and no element of income embedded, the payment made by the assessee to Dart is not liable to tax in India. Since both the Ld. AO / Hon’ble DRP have decided this issue against the assessee holding such payment in the nature

Alan Moses Mozes, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Intl. Taxn., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kapoor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(4)(ii)Section 5(2)Section 6(1)Section 69A

taxmann.com 181 (Panaji - Trib.), the ITAT held that money brought in India by non-resident for investment or for other purpose is not liable to tax under provisions of Act and question of assessment to Alan Moses Mozes vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 8– income-tax arises only when there

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 983/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri T.M. Shivakumar, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra

filed was not in accordance with the law or if some income was wrongly offered to tax, which was as per law, not liable to tax, or if the assessee finds that there was omission to make a claim in the return of income. The only 7 M/s. CMS Securitas

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1691/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

time as may capital company or venture capital fund shall furnish, within such time as may be prescribed, to the person who is liable to tax in respect of such income and escribed, to the person who is liable to tax in respect of such income and escribed ... person who is liable to tax in respect of such income and to the prescribed income to the prescribed income- tax authority, a statement in the prescribed form and tax authority, a statement in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner, giving details of the nature

Jm Financial Property Fund I, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/For Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Shri Santanu Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 41/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 144Section 250

appellant on the following grounds: “1. That Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant being non- resident would not be liable to tax under the Act on remuneration received towards services rendered outside India. Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider decisions by Hon’ble Courts relied

Charies River Laboratories Montreal, Ulc, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(2)(1) Int. Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 2324/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Charles River Laboratories Vs Acit, Montreal, Ulc, Circle-1(2)(1), 22022 Transcanadienenne, International Taxation, Quebec, Senneville, New Delhi. Canada-H9X3R3, Canada. Pan: Aagcc4061J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chavali S. Narayana, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Chavali S. Narayana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Montreal from its customers in India is in the nature of Fees for Included Services (“FIS”) / Fees for Technical Services (“FTS”) and consequently liable to tax in India, without having due regard to Article 12(4) of the Tax Treaty. 1.2 The Hon’ble DRP/learned AO has failed to appreciate

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., Thailand vs. DCIT, Intl. Taxation Circle, Noida

ITA 7276/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

Erroneous taxation of 3 6 7 8 offshore supplies FTS is not liable to tax in absence of FTS article 4 7 8 9 under India- Thailand DTAA Transfer pricing adjustment 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6, N.A. N.A. N.A. 6.1, 6.2, 7, 8, 10, 13 Double taxation ... portion of the income of these companies arising from the supply of parts etc. was liable for tax in India.” 12. Accordingly, it was submitted that the same view has been upheld by Tribunal in case of HCIL while passing the order for AY 2010-11 [copy

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

ITA 1160/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 234D

Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 195Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

erroneously concluded that the guarantee fees received by the Appellant amounting to INR 3,908,249 accrues and arises in India and is liable to tax in India under section 5(2) r.w.s section 9(1)(i) of the Act at the rate of 40 percent plus applicable surcharge

Viren Vashi, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3830/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3830/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT, D/R

firm belief that the payment of license fee/rental of Rs.1,35,00,000/- per month for alternative accommodation to assessee was not liable to tax as same was paid to the assessee for providing alternative accommodation and Rs.1,00,000/- was given for shifting/re-shifting, hence same should not be treated ... assessment year 2008-09 Bench "D" the Tribunal held that the amounts received as compensation for hardship, rehabilitation and for shifting are not liable to tax We, therefore, respectfully, the above decisions are of the considered view that the amounts received by the assessee as hardship compensation, rehabilitation

Rbw Global Sarl, Mumbai vs. ACIT(International Taxation) Circle-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 733/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the Department to prove that

United Inida Insurance Co. Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 42/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing

Section 14ASection 195Section 40

exists only in the country where all his assets exist-which admittedly is not in India) and therefore the reinsurance premium are not liable to tax in India. 4. Even assuming but not admitting, that the reinsurance premium ceded by the Appellant is taxable in India, the CIT(A) failed

Acitcorporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are

ITA 130/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing

Section 14ASection 195Section 40