← 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

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1988/MUM/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

account of outstanding trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u/s 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding ... account of outstanding trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u / s * 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding

Rajeshwar Prasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-12(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 is allowed and appeal for AY 2005-06 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1987/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68

account of outstanding trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u/s 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding ... account of outstanding trade creditors, holding the same to be not genuine and hence income liable to tax u / s * 68 of the I.T. Act as unexplained cash credit, which addition being not factually and legally justified may kindly be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in also upholding

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in the years in which these were debited in accounts by the appellant. The appellant's contentions that it was not liable to tax in those years when provisions were initially made and accordingly, the write back of the same cannot be taxed was not accepted ... made by the AO is not sustainable for two reasons. The first reason is that when provision was made, the assessee was not liable to tax, hence, if the provision is reversed in the year of making the provision, it is not resulting into any tax liability, because the assessee

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in the years in which these were debited in accounts by the appellant. The appellant's contentions that it was not liable to tax in those years when provisions were initially made and accordingly, the write back of the same cannot be taxed was not accepted ... made by the AO is not sustainable for two reasons. The first reason is that when provision was made, the assessee was not liable to tax, hence, if the provision is reversed in the year of making the provision, it is not resulting into any tax liability, because the assessee

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in the years in which these were debited in accounts by the appellant. The appellant's contentions that it was not liable to tax in those years when provisions were initially made and accordingly, the write back of the same cannot be taxed was not accepted ... made by the AO is not sustainable for two reasons. The first reason is that when provision was made, the assessee was not liable to tax, hence, if the provision is reversed in the year of making the provision, it is not resulting into any tax liability, because the assessee

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in the years in which these were debited in accounts by the appellant. The appellant's contentions that it was not liable to tax in those years when provisions were initially made and accordingly, the write back of the same cannot be taxed was not accepted ... made by the AO is not sustainable for two reasons. The first reason is that when provision was made, the assessee was not liable to tax, hence, if the provision is reversed in the year of making the provision, it is not resulting into any tax liability, because the assessee

Aban Singapore Pte Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1329/CHNY/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1329/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 2. Stay Application No.9/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1329/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) M/S. Aban Singapore Pte. Limited Dcit बनाम/ 113, Pantheon Road, Egmore S.O International Taxation-1(1), Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqca-2845-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 28Section 40Section 44ASection 44B

this instant case before us we are called upon to decide whether the payments made to DD8PL for bare boat hire charges is liable to tax in India or not. The assessee has filed a return under section 44BB of the Act offered lower profit than the 10 percentage ... considered view that consideration received by the assessee for providing rig services to M/s. CAIRN India Ltd., is not liable to tax in India as royalty u/s.9(1)(vi) and Article-12 of the India Singapore Tax Treaty. Further, income of the assessee is also not taxable as business profits

Jane Street Asia Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3329/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna a/w HardikFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 70(2)

below. We have also considered the decisions cited before us by the Counsel for the Assessee. The Assessee has suffered STCL on assets liable to tax at 15% at the same time the Assessee has earned STCG liable to tax at 30%. Though the Assessee had gains in category taxable ... Assessee set-off STCL from the said category against STCG liable to tax at higher rate, i.e., at 30%. We find that similar controversy has been considered by the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Mac Charles India Ltd. (supra). In the said case in identical transactions

Aila Infrastructure Private Limited, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 371/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala & Ms. Aruna Aiyar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld.DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 69Section 69B

revenue is that consideration as per stamp duty authorities vis-à-vis shown by the assessee in its books of accounts are liable to tax u/s. 69/69B of the Act. For a better analysis of the preposition under consideration, we are reproducing herein below the provisions of sections

General Electric International Inc., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, International Taxation Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3498/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Veerbhandra Mahajan
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

also made addition of INR 11,96,947/-, being income for rendering soft skills/non-technical training to employees of group companies held to be liable to tax as Fee for Technical Services at the rate of 10% as per Section 115A of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings ... were neither offered to tax in the return of income nor in the revised computation of income. Income which was liable to tax was not offered to tax in the computation of income. Therefore, addition was made by the Assessing Officer. Clearly, the Appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Private Limited, Pune

ITA 1203/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

ought to have treated the IPS subsidy received of Rs.96,23,314/- under PSI scheme as Capital Asset neither liable to tax nor to be reduced from Block of asset. 2. The Ld. AO erred in and Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming that the amount of IPS subsidy ... subsidy is given for developing backward areas and therefore it is capital in nature and 3 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 not liable for tax and the said subsidy is received as one of incentives under PSI 2007. 3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

ITA 1157/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

ought to have treated the IPS subsidy received of Rs.96,23,314/- under PSI scheme as Capital Asset neither liable to tax nor to be reduced from Block of asset. 2. The Ld. AO erred in and Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming that the amount of IPS subsidy ... subsidy is given for developing backward areas and therefore it is capital in nature and 3 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 not liable for tax and the said subsidy is received as one of incentives under PSI 2007. 3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Chakan Pune vs. Dy.Comm. of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi

ITA 1156/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

ought to have treated the IPS subsidy received of Rs.96,23,314/- under PSI scheme as Capital Asset neither liable to tax nor to be reduced from Block of asset. 2. The Ld. AO erred in and Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming that the amount of IPS subsidy ... subsidy is given for developing backward areas and therefore it is capital in nature and 3 ITA.No.1156, 1157 & 1203/PUN./2023 not liable for tax and the said subsidy is received as one of incentives under PSI 2007. 3. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(5) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4821/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

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

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4820/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

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

Nitin Nagarji Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

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

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

case for AY 2001-02 to 2003- 04 wherein interest paid by assessee to Head Office/ overseas branches was held to be not liable to tax, following was the precise observation of the Tribunal in its order dated 20-6-2012 for AY 2002-03:- Page [at ITA No.3416/Mum/2023 ... contracting state (Source state). Therefore, interest paid by Branch Office of BNP Paribas in India to its Head Office in France is liable to tax in the source state i.e. India as per Article 12 (2) @ 10%. This position is non-debatable and undisputed w.e.f A. Y 2016-17 onwards

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

being a company or to a foreign company. In the present case, the Commission in the hands of foreign agents are not liable to tax in India as the same was paid in India in respect of services rendered abroad to non-resident commission agents. The case of the assessee ... delay in the delivery and installation of plant and machineries/construction of building and they are to be treated as capital receipts and not liable to tax. According to AO, these liquidated damages were received from suppliers in lieu of their violations/not honoring the terms agreed upon in the contracts which

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

being a company or to a foreign company. In the present case, the Commission in the hands of foreign agents are not liable to tax in India as the same was paid in India in respect of services rendered abroad to non-resident commission agents. The case of the assessee ... delay in the delivery and installation of plant and machineries/construction of building and they are to be treated as capital receipts and not liable to tax. According to AO, these liquidated damages were received from suppliers in lieu of their violations/not honoring the terms agreed upon in the contracts which

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

being a company or to a foreign company. In the present case, the Commission in the hands of foreign agents are not liable to tax in India as the same was paid in India in respect of services rendered abroad to non-resident commission agents. The case of the assessee ... delay in the delivery and installation of plant and machineries/construction of building and they are to be treated as capital receipts and not liable to tax. According to AO, these liquidated damages were received from suppliers in lieu of their violations/not honoring the terms agreed upon in the contracts which