“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

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

bank account of the assessee. The cash deposited in the bank of the assessee per se cannot be said to be an income liable to tax as gross basis. Though, the present assessee suo-moto offered additional income of Rs. 31.5 lakh against cash ITA No.251/Ahd/2022 with 9 others

East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2976/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआ.अ.सं.2976 2976/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2020-2021) 2976 2976 East Bridge Capital Master Fund I Ltd. C/O. Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29Th Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400 028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan:Aaece8814F बनाम Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal & Fenil Bhatt, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT (DR)

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 70(2)

primary issue in appeal by Assessee is rejection of method of set- off of Short Term Capital Losses (STCL) incurred from transactions liable to tax at lower rate, against Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) chargeable to tax at higher rate i.e., 30% plus surcharge and cess. 2 East Bridge Capital ... Assessee submitted that the DRP and Assessing Officer have erred in holding that the Assessee cannot set-off STCLs suffered in category liable to tax at lower rate against STCG liable for tax at higher rate. The provisions of section 70(2) of the Act allows the Assessee

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

income arise for the Head Office in India; (iii) that the assessee has a PE in India and income from such PE is liable to tax as Business Profits in India; (iv) that technical employees were deputed, however no technical services were rendered by the Head Office; (v) deputed employees

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S.A., Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sarin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 195Section 201Section 40Section 7(3)

Herbert Smith Free LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 3994/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Herbert Smith Free Llp Vs. Dcit C/O Srbc & Associates Circle 2(1)(1) Llp, Golf View New Delhi. Corporate Tower-B, Sector 42, Gurgaon Haryana Pin 122002 Pan Aaffh0766B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 320/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

incentives received under the FPS/FMS/SHIS Schemes notified under the Foreign Trade Policy was held to be capital in nature and thus not liable to tax. The relevant findings of this Tribunal, as noted by us, are as under: “43. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available ... that the subsidies received by the assessee under the Foreign Trade Policy was in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 8.6 Now coming to the issue relating to the treatment of subsidies while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, we find that

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are

ITA 1176/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1175/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 1176/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. बनाम / M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd Vs. (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Cross Objection No.51/Mum/2023 (Arising Out Of I.T. A. No. 1172/Mum/2023) (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. बनाम / Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 320/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd) बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-7(2) Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. 616, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1220M 2

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1175/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

incentives received under the FPS/FMS/SHIS Schemes notified under the Foreign Trade Policy was held to be capital in nature and thus not liable to tax. The relevant findings of this Tribunal, as noted by us, are as under: "43. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available ... that the subsidies received by the assessee under the Foreign Trade Policy was in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. 8.6 Now coming to the issue relating to the treatment of subsidies while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act, we find that

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar & Shri BFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2) (1), Mumbai

ITA 3339/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270A

cost and INR 306,89,93,842/- being revenue from IT Support Services. According to the Assessing Officer, the IT Support Services were liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant as Fee for Technical Services in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act as well ... addition of INR 306,89,93,843/- in the hands of the Appellant holding the same to be Fee for Technical Services liable to tax at the rate of 10% in terms of Article 12 of the DTAA. Further, while computing the tax liability the Assessing Officer computed tax

Nicky Marmo Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(3), New Delhi

The Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2303/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Nicky Marmo Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Unit No. 203, Second Ward-18(3), Floor, Pearls Best New Delhi Height,1 Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn3607P Appellant Respondent

Section 68

Accordingly, the investment received by the appellant company through allotment of shares amounting to Rs. 29,77,65,000/- remained unexplained and thus liable to tax u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE as unexplained cash credits. Hence an addition of Rs. 29,77,65,000/- was made

Shri Suresh Kumar, Bhopal vs. The ITO-5(3), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 414/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Suresh Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, S/O Shri Laxman Singh 5(3), Sahu, Bhopal H.No.06,New Jail Road, बनाम/ Ratan Colony, Vs. Karond, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ayvpk 6096 P Assessee By Shri Nitin Kaushik, Ar Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02.04.2024

Section 115BSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69A

taxes have been paid on it, then, the year in which that income is caught by the Department, the same is liable to tax u/s 69A of the Act. In this context, reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble P & H High Court in case of Bimal Prakash Gupta ... gain. The intent and purpose of demonetization was exactly the same. Hence, receipts from the unreported property transaction ‘in amount and form’, are liable to tax as ‘unexplained money’ in the year they were introduced in the bank account in the form of cash deposit. Under these circumstances, addition

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 405/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.405/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.19/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.405/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

valid retraction, the same could not be relied upon for the purpose of concluding that the relevant unexplained investment was liable to tax in this AY. The said statement of the assessee did not contain the reasoning for the assessee’s offer to disclose the undisclosed income

Devinder Singh Sahney, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwal, Sr. Advocate with S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, Fenil Bhatt &For Respondent: S/Shri Miland Chavan & Anil Sant, Sr. DRs

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

rational or logic. The ld. Counsel for the 4 assessee submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident and hence, is not liable to tax in Indiain respect of any income which may accrue or has arisen to him outside India. 2.3 The Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts