liable to tax — 2,645 case laws

Guruvastu Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5850/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Guruvastu Properties P. Ltd. Dcit – 1(1)(4) 47, 7Th Floor, Tardeo Ac Market 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 M K Road, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Hiten M. VasantFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15JSection 250Section 45Section 54E

that “book profits” cannot include the deemed income. The proceeds by way of sole of an investment not being income, it is not liable to tax u/s. 115JB unless there is a clear intendment. It is well recognized that there cannot be a charge by implication. Thus capital gain which

Santosh Krushna Ghule, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Satara

ITA 461/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.461/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Krushna Ghule, V The Income Tax Officer, 165/9, Sahu Nagar, Godolo, S Ward-5, Satara. Satara – 415001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ayopg3325J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Granting Him Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & The Impugned Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Ao Had Assessed An Amount Of Rs.53,24,743/- As Long Term Capital Gains Without Santosh Krushna Ghule [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 45Section 54F

received the consideration during the A Y 2013-14 and the amount of Rs. 1,66,667/- received during the year was not liable to tax because it was lower than the taxable limit. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Pardeep Shah, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 1222/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2012-13

For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

verified by the assessee to submit that the total income of the assessee during the year was lower than the maximum amount liable to tax and therefore, there was no advance tax liability arising in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the embargo placed under Section

Nandigowdanahalli Manjappa Pushpa, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 384/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 69Section 69A

unexplained money be deleted, agricultural income as declared by the appellant be accepted, further it be also held that the appellant is liable to tax at regular rates of tax and that the provisions of special rate of tax are not attracted to the case of the appellant and interest

M/S Wipro Limited, Bnagalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

ITA 3115/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 492/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. andFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does ... been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2851/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. andFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does ... been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 222/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 91

been granted in respect of the taxability of the said source of income, it cannot be postulated that the assessee is not liable to tax. The said exemption granted under the statute has the effect of suspending the collection of Income-tax for a period of 10 years. It does

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1575/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

held that when an element of income is embedded in the receipt in the hands of the third party the reimbursements are also liable to tax. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: SPX India (PJ Ltd vs CIT (2013} 36 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi-Tribunal] Section ... been held that reimbursement of expenses to a non-resident on cost to cost basis (without any profit element) would not be liable to taxes and relied on the following judicial precedents:  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs A.P. Moller Maersk A S [2017] (78 txamann.com

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1574/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

held that when an element of income is embedded in the receipt in the hands of the third party the reimbursements are also liable to tax. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: SPX India (PJ Ltd vs CIT (2013} 36 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi-Tribunal] Section ... been held that reimbursement of expenses to a non-resident on cost to cost basis (without any profit element) would not be liable to taxes and relied on the following judicial precedents:  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs A.P. Moller Maersk A S [2017] (78 txamann.com

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 are allowed and stay applications filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1573/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1573, 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2020-21 & 2021-22 & S.A. Nos. 20, 21/Chny/2024 [In Ita Nos. 1574 & 1575/Chny/2023] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2020-21, 2021-22 Temenos Headquarters Sa, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Rue De Lecole De V. Income Tax, Chimie, International Taxation -2(2), 1205 Geneva, Chennai. Switzerland- 1205. [Pan:Aadct-7868-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

held that when an element of income is embedded in the receipt in the hands of the third party the reimbursements are also liable to tax. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: SPX India (PJ Ltd vs CIT (2013} 36 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi-Tribunal] Section ... been held that reimbursement of expenses to a non-resident on cost to cost basis (without any profit element) would not be liable to taxes and relied on the following judicial precedents:  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT vs A.P. Moller Maersk A S [2017] (78 txamann.com

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7760/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7759/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7757/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 7756/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6769/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6767/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6744/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on quantum for AY 2006-

ITA 6743/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

income by the resident State. Accordingly, the type of income falling under Article 23(3), if it arises in U.K., it is not liable to tax in India, even if the assessee is a resident of India. 3.6. The word "may be taxed" appearing DTAA entered by Government of India ... deposited by non-residents in the bank account located in India were held taxable under Section 69 of the Act. Non-residents are liable to tax under the Act only on income which has arisen in India. It is also implicit that clear basis of the aforesaid decision is that

“liable to tax”

Leading authorities on liable to tax

Judgments citing liable to tax

Guruvastu Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(4), Mumbai

Santosh Krushna Ghule, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Satara

Pardeep Shah, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Nandigowdanahalli Manjappa Pushpa, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bengaluru

M/S Wipro Limited, Bnagalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

Temenos Headquarters Sa, Switzerland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

Rajinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi