“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

ITA 946/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

from international organisations on most competitive terms, payment made to swiss company for rendering such consultancy services amounted to 'fee for technical service' liable to tax in India. The above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable to facts of the present case. In the above judgment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

ITA 945/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

ITA 944/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, C-1(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited (Formerly Known As Manthan Software Services Pvt Ltd), Bangalore

ITA 943/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar JainFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Hireright Llc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 3413/DEL/2023[Hireright LLC ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kishore Kunal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR

Section 10(50)Section 115ASection 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 5Section 9

received by the Appellant for providing solutions to clients is for use of information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience and same is liable to taxed as royalty. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in holding that the Appellant ... clients on payment basis. Therefore, use of or right to use of server also amounts to use of equipment and the same is liable to taxed as royalty. 3 SA No. 446/Del/2023 Hireright LLC. 2.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Interglobe Aviation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3397/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 4(2)Section 4(6)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 5(2)

supplier credits" received from various suppliers of aircraft parts [mainly from P&W, Honeywell, Rockwell, etc.] as a revenue receipt liable to tax. 7. That on facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of AO in disallowing deduction

Interglobe Aviation Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3396/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 4(2)Section 4(6)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 5(2)

Swiss Re Asia Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation)-Circle -4(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are allowed

ITA 1492/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270Section 9(1)(i)

India in terms of Article 5 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore (for short ‘DTAA’), the same is not liable to tax in India as per Article 7 of the DTAA, and (b) Income received by the Appellant from SRCL-IB and SGB for support services ... India. 3.11. The Assessing Officer also rejected the contention of the Appellant that the fee received from SRCL-IB and SGB was not liable to tax in India and held that payments were received by the Appellant form SRCL-IB and SGB for providing specialized, technical inputs and services

Universal Education Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) II(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1097/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleuniversal Education Foundation V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption) – Ii(2) 1St Floor, Filka Building Mumbai Daftary Road, Malad (W) Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aabcu0516D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 254(2)

Page 23 of 27 Universal Education Foundation considered view, the income cannot be assessed during the current assessment year and it is liable to taxed in the year of receipt i.e., in the A.Y. 2015-16 and as per the record assessee has also declared the same in the above

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Dcit, Cir 6(1), R.No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Brigs Trading Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 2269/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Briggs Trading Co, P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2136/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dalpat Shah & Mr. B.S. SharmaFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL

Ge Precision Healthcare Llc, Usa vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Minto Road, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2623/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234FSection 270ASection 56Section 9(1)(vii)

view the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, we hold that the amount received on account of sublicensing of standardized software is not liable to tax. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17/01/2024 (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Dated

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 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’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 3(1)(1), New Delhi vs. Westin Hotel Management L.P., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2391/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

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

ACIT Intl Taxation Circle 3(1)(2), Delhi vs. Starwood (M) International Inc, Noida

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2390/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraacit Vs. Starwood (M) International International Taxation Inc, A-109, C/O. M/S. Nangia Circle – 3(1)(2) & Co. Llp, Sector-136, Noida Delhi Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 Pan No. Aancs 4030 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Amit Arora & Shri Vishal Misra, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.01.2024

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

Dialog Axiata Plc, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 144CSection 147Section 191Section 195Section 5

within the purview of section 195 of the Act, as the same is not in the nature of FTS/Royalty, the assessee was not liable to tax in India, resulting in non deduction of TDS by VSL. The assessee further contends that it had not filed its return of income

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Schaeffler India Limited (Earlier Known As Fag Bearings India Ltd.), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 150/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

Bearings India Ltd.) vs. ACIT Asst. Years –2010-11 to 2014-15 & 2010-11 to 2013-14 Dividend paid to German Shareholder was liable to tax @ 10%. However, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the case is now covered against the assessee by virtue of decision of ITAT Mumbai ... defined, under article 4(1) of the Indo French tax treaty, as "any person who, under the laws of that Contracting State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other criterion of a similar nature". Obviously, the company incorporated in India

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Schaeffler India Limited (Earlier Known As Fag Bearings India Ltd.), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 149/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Schaeffler India Limited (Earlier Known As Fag Bearings India Ltd.), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 148/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri

Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 90(2)