← 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

ACIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 798/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 522/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 521/MUM/2019[2088-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2088-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2936/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

assessee has failed to deduct tax on such payments made to the HO/Overseas Branches, which are in the nature of FTS and liable to tax in India." 42. In response to the above letter, assessee filed the detailed submissions objecting to the above said show cause notice which are more

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2839/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

assessee has failed to deduct tax on such payments made to the HO/Overseas Branches, which are in the nature of FTS and liable to tax in India." 42. In response to the above letter, assessee filed the detailed submissions objecting to the above said show cause notice which are more

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

assessee has failed to deduct tax on such payments made to the HO/Overseas Branches, which are in the nature of FTS and liable to tax in India." 42. In response to the above letter, assessee filed the detailed submissions objecting to the above said show cause notice which are more

ACIT (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1407/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

assessee has failed to deduct tax on such payments made to the HO/Overseas Branches, which are in the nature of FTS and liable to tax in India." 42. In response to the above letter, assessee filed the detailed submissions objecting to the above said show cause notice which are more

ACIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7498/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7258/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Developement Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3704/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Maharashtra Airport Deputy Commissioner Of Development Company Income Tax, Ltd., Circle (3)(2)(1), 6Th Floor, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Vs. World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhawan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcm9623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy/Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax-(3)(2)(1), Development Co. Ltd., Vs. 12Th Floor, Room No.608/674, 6Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower No.1, Cuffe Parade

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, D.R
Section 80I

facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3682/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 80I

facts and in law, in not appreciating that the grant received during the year from the state government is capital receipt, not liable to tax, as the assessee is a state by itself or a surrogate of the state or an agent, performing the functions of the state and/or

Clifford Chance Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle Int. Tax

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

ITA 3377/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

assessing officer erred on facts and in law by not excluding the amount of expenses reimbursed to the appellant from determining income liable to tax in India. Re: Others 13. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without ... assessing officer erred on facts and in law by not excluding the amount of expenses reimbursed to the appellant from determining income liable to tax in India. Re: Alleged addition of income received from ICICI Bank 14. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in adding

Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Civic Centre

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2020-21

ITA 2681/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandrasa No. 437/Del/2023

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 9

assessing officer erred on facts and in law by not excluding the amount of expenses reimbursed to the appellant from determining income liable to tax in India. Re: Others 13. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234A of the Act without ... assessing officer erred on facts and in law by not excluding the amount of expenses reimbursed to the appellant from determining income liable to tax in India. Re: Alleged addition of income received from ICICI Bank 14. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in adding

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 885/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of similar nature; - a person who, being recipient of payments ... period of 01.04.2015 to 31.12.2015 are enclosed in pages 410 to 423 of the Paper Book. We find that the assessee is liable for tax for worldwide income. The assessee is a fiscal transparent entity entitled for treaty benefits as it holds valid tax residency certificate from UK Tax Authorities

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 884/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of similar nature; - a person who, being recipient of payments ... period of 01.04.2015 to 31.12.2015 are enclosed in pages 410 to 423 of the Paper Book. We find that the assessee is liable for tax for worldwide income. The assessee is a fiscal transparent entity entitled for treaty benefits as it holds valid tax residency certificate from UK Tax Authorities

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2240/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of similar nature; - a person who, being recipient of payments ... period of 01.04.2015 to 31.12.2015 are enclosed in pages 410 to 423 of the Paper Book. We find that the assessee is liable for tax for worldwide income. The assessee is a fiscal transparent entity entitled for treaty benefits as it holds valid tax residency certificate from UK Tax Authorities

Uk Grid Solutions Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2239/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

fact as to whether the assessee would be eligible for India UK Treaty benefits, the ld AO observed that - - a person who is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of similar nature; - a person who, being recipient of payments ... period of 01.04.2015 to 31.12.2015 are enclosed in pages 410 to 423 of the Paper Book. We find that the assessee is liable for tax for worldwide income. The assessee is a fiscal transparent entity entitled for treaty benefits as it holds valid tax residency certificate from UK Tax Authorities

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

outside India; no activity in relation to such offshore supply is conducted in India, then income from such offshore supplies cannot be made liable to tax in India as assessee does not constitute „Business Connection‟ in India. It is also pertinent to note that under the Contract No.3 which

Ge Hydro France, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

outside India; no activity in relation to such offshore supply is conducted in India, then income from such offshore supplies cannot be made liable to tax in India as assessee does not constitute „Business Connection‟ in India. It is also pertinent to note that under the Contract No.3 which

M/S. City Union Bank, Kumbakonam vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

that in case of individual and HUF, the appellant has already filed Form 15G & 15H and proved that the declarants income is not liable to tax and accordingly, no TDS has been deducted in respect of payment. Although, the appellant has furnished necessary details, the Assessing Officer has disallowed