← 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

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, all four these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1324/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

learned CIT Appeals ought to have appreciated that on account of the CBDT notification No. 12/2012, the said amount was not liable to tax deduction. 4. The learned CIT Appeals erred in holding that tax was required to be deducted on communication costs including leased line charges, internet charges

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, all four these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

learned CIT Appeals ought to have appreciated that on account of the CBDT notification No. 12/2012, the said amount was not liable to tax deduction. 4. The learned CIT Appeals erred in holding that tax was required to be deducted on communication costs including leased line charges, internet charges

Sulekha.Com New Media Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT TDS Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, all four these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1322/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1322, 1323, 1324 & 1325/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-2022) Sulekha.Com New Media Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor Campus, Tds Circle 3(1) 1A Rmz Millenia Business Park, Chennai. 143, Dr. Mgr Main Road, Perungudi, Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan: Aadcm 6938R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Bunch Of Four Appeals Being Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023 Filed By The Assessee Sulekha.Com New India Private Limited Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Even Date 27.09.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of 2 Ita Nos.1322-1325/Chny/2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Ravichandran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 194JSection 201(1)

learned CIT Appeals ought to have appreciated that on account of the CBDT notification No. 12/2012, the said amount was not liable to tax deduction. 4. The learned CIT Appeals erred in holding that tax was required to be deducted on communication costs including leased line charges, internet charges

Yogesh Patel, Usa vs. DCIT Circle Int Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

ITA 2065/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 48

while the latter is not’. 12. The consideration received by ‘confirming party’ or value of property in the hands of ‘occupant’ may be liable to tax, as what they transferred or relinquished was an independent right or interest, held by them, falling in definition of capital asset within meaning