“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

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S.Mac Quality Builders Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 644/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

advanced by M/s.IG3 Infra Limited to the appellant company on various dates during the period from 27.04.2020 to 25.06.2020 as income liable to tax in the hands of the appellant company by way of deemed dividend us 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant ... advanced by MsIG3 Infra Limited to the appellant company during the period from 27.04.2020 to 25.06.2020 amounted to deemed dividend liable for tax in the hands of the appellant company. The applicability of the second limb and the third limb of sec 2(22)(e) to the facts

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukilanstructurals Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 643/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt Lit., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 642/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Section 139(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Assessment years prior to insertion of section 2 (24) (xviii) of the Act, which has held that capital receipt which is not liable to tax cannot be subjected to MAT and hence are required to be excluded while computing Book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 48. Coming to decisions

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Ajmer

ITA 497/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 2 These are eight cross appeals filed by the revenue

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME

Bhalchandra Pandurang Dalvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(1)(2), New Mumbai

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

ITA 3865/MUM/2023[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(1)Section 69A

appellant was not aware of the facts and his returned income was less than Rs. 5,00,000/- and was not liable to tax Audit. He was under honest and bonafide belief the paper appeal Page 4 of 9 ITA NO. 3865 & 2549/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2009-10) Bhalchandra P. Dalvi

Sme Pool Series V Aug 2016, Mumbai vs. Income- Tax Officer (TDS) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 341/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 139Section 194LSection 201

behalf of securitisation trust and the securitisation trust shall furnish, within such period, as may be prescribed, to the person who is liable to tax in respect of such income and to the prescribed income-tax authority, a statement in such form and verified in such manner, giving details

Bhalchandra P. Dalvi, Ghahtkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 27 (1) (2), Vashi, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2549/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(1)Section 69A

Shri Arindam Dasgupta., Kolkata vs. ACIT, It-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1127/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

Treat shall overrule the Act. In the case of the assessee, by virtue of the Treaty, the assessee is liable to tax in Austria for the services rendered in Austria and not in India. Therefore, though the Act mandates Tax Residency Certificate of Austria , non-production of the same before ... purposes of this convention, the term 'resident of a contracting state' means any person who, under the laws of that state, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature, and also includes that state

Rajat Dhara, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1914/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1914/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajat Dhara............................................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Abqpd1200L] Vs. Dcit (I.T), Circle-2(1), Kolkata...…….…..….........…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Earlier Decided By The Order Of The Tribunal Dated March 02, 2022, However, The Revenue Moved An M.A No.35/Kol/2022 Stating Therein That A Mistake Apparent On Record Has Occurred In The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, Vide Order Dated 15.12.2023 Passed In M.A No.35/Kol/2022, The Final Order Dated 02.03.2022 Passed In Ita No.1914/Kol/2019 Was Recalled. The Appeal Has Been Heard Afresh. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 5Section 5(1)Section 90

first instance, as per the provisions of Article 16(1) of the Indo-US DTAA, such salary/remuneration of the assessee is liable to tax in the United States only. The exception clause as mentioned in Article 16(2) of the DTAA is not applicable in toto to the case

ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Sheraton Overseas Management Corporation, Noida

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2392/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Amit AroraFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

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

support the Revenue’s case that the amount in question being in the nature of ‘fees for included services' was liable to tax in India also. The learned counsel for the assessee has raised a strong objection for admission of these additional grounds stating that neither the Assessing Officer

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

raised by the Continental Group. Such Escrow amount could not be regarded as part of ‘full value of consideration’ to be liable to tax in the hands of assessee more particularly when substantial claims of more than ₹78.90 crore were identified and raised in the subsequent years against such Escrow

Anjana Foundation Vadodara, Vadodara vs. The AO, CPC, Bangalore Present the ITO, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal

ITA 695/AHD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dileep K. Vaidya &

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250

receipt but the land received as gift in kind by the assessee-trust, which does not fall under purview of income, so not liable to tax, as it is a capital receipt. ITA No. 695/Ahd/2023 Anjana Foundation Vadodara Vs. CPC AY : 2021-22 2. The assessee has received the Gift ... trust charitable object purpose activities. Which is irrevocable, Gift in nature. It should have been held to be the capital receipt, so not liable to tax. 3. Rs.70,60,000/- is contribution received from the trustee in trust fund (capital account), who has gifted the Land to the trust. This

Corning Sas India Branch Office, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax, Haryana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 528/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat Kul Bharat Kul Bharatkul Bharat Shri Shri Shri

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshresth, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 270

aforesaid branch post 1 February 2012 and thereby wrongly held the branch office as PE; 3. erred in concluding that interest income is liable to taxed as business income under Article 7 of India-France DTAA by treating branch office as PE in India, without appreciating that even

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(2)(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 4278/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

ACIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3017/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Acit-2(2)(2), Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Appellant Yes Bank Ltd., 15Th Floor, Yes Bank Tower, Ifc 2, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacy 2068 D Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 14ASection 251Section 35DSection 8D(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBΑΙ BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2073/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

over the years, it has shown loss. Thus, he submitted, the assessee is fiscally transparent entity. He submitted, since, the assessee is not liable to tax in Mauritius, it cannot be treated as a resident of Mauritius in view of Article 4(2) 8 Sarva Capital LLC of the Treaty ... Mauritius as it has nil or negligible business; that the assessee cannot be a tax resident of Mauritius , as it is not IT liable to tax in Mauritius in terms of Article 4(1) of the Treaty. Of course, learned DRP has agreed with the views expressed by the Assessing