“liable to tax”

United Phosporus Ltd ( Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

face value of the DEPB. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation of a taxing statute that a subject will be liable to tax and will be entitled to exemption from tax according to the strict language of the taxing statute and if as per the words used

United Phosphorus Ltd ( Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

face value of the DEPB. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation of a taxing statute that a subject will be liable to tax and will be entitled to exemption from tax according to the strict language of the taxing statute and if as per the words used

United Phosphorus Ltd ( Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

face value of the DEPB. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation of a taxing statute that a subject will be liable to tax and will be entitled to exemption from tax according to the strict language of the taxing statute and if as per the words used

United Phosphorus Ltd (Know Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

face value of the DEPB. It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation of a taxing statute that a subject will be liable to tax and will be entitled to exemption from tax according to the strict language of the taxing statute and if as per the words used

Atomstroyexport, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)Circle -1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

that the amounts received by the appellant company from the Offshore Supply Contracts are covered by the provisions of section 44BBB and consequently liable to tax in India. 3) The learned DCIT/DRP failed to appreciate that the receipts from the Offshore Supply Contracts are not taxable in India ... whether the impugned income from OSC are taxable as per the substantive provisions and DTAA. As per Section 5, a non- resident is liable for tax on incomes where are received/accrued in India or which are 14 Atomstroyexport deemed to be received/deemed to be accrued in India. Section 9 deals

Kunnama V Balakrishna, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

case of Kushal K. Bangia (supra) have answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding it to be capital receipt not liable to tax. We find that the issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal (supra) and therefore

Anisha Gulab Adnani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int. Tax) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revised Ground raised by the assessee are allowed and order of authorities below are set-aside with a direction to AO to delete the addition made and treat the whole amount received ...

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalms. Anisha Gulab Adnani 449, Ambit House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013, Pan: Almpa7111K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Intl. Tax) – 1 (1)(1), R. No. 19, B Wing, 3Rd Floor, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 ..... Respondent

additional amount of Rs. 28,62,600/- received on surrender of Lifetime Super Pension Policy is a capital receipt and is not liable to tax in the hands of the appellant. The appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 28, 62,600/- maintained by the Ld. CIT (A) deserves

Star Television Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Companies as approved by the TPO 6 Transfer of Channels (i.e. Vijay TV and STAR World) Gr.No.15-16 Gr.No.15-16 held liable to tax in India as Short Term Capital Gain by holding that the channel / assets of the channel are located in India 7 Taxation of royalty ... capital gains taxable in India, the entire consideration is treated a emanating from transfer of assets in India and being held as liable to tax accordingly. 18.3.8. On the basis of the definition of capital asset in Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and intangible asset

Star Asia Region Fz Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Companies as approved by the TPO 6 Transfer of Channels (i.e. Vijay TV and STAR World) Gr.No.15-16 Gr.No.15-16 held liable to tax in India as Short Term Capital Gain by holding that the channel / assets of the channel are located in India 7 Taxation of royalty ... capital gains taxable in India, the entire consideration is treated a emanating from transfer of assets in India and being held as liable to tax accordingly. 18.3.8. On the basis of the definition of capital asset in Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and intangible asset

Indian Machine Tools Manufacturers Association, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm. of Income Tax (Exemption) -1(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes while rest of the

holding of exhibitions and seminars, has been held to be governed by the general commercial principles of mutuality, and is hence not liable to tax.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant is a Section 25 Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies ... seminars and other related activities were governed by the principle of mutuality and therefore, the same were not liable to tax in the hands of the Appellant. Merely because the Appellant has entered into transaction with non-members and had earned profit, the same would not take away the right

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Intl Tax Circle 3(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

terms of Article 12 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and USA (hereinafter referred to as ‘DTAA’) and therefore, were not liable to tax in India. However, the Assessing Officer was 13 not convinced. The Assessing Officer rejecting the aforesaid contention of the Appellant and went ... Sponsorship Assignment (INR 3,19,48,834/-) and Co-ordination Membership Agreement (INR 5,01,09,903/-) were liable to tax in India as fee for included services. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed aggregate addition of INR 10,25,87,737/- in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 18/09/2021

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

backward areas of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and to generate employment opportunities. The same should be considered as capital in nature and hence not liable to tax. 3.0 In the computation of total income for the instant As:2sSment Year, the appellant has disallowed under clause () to section 43B, provision

Blue Star Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Blue Star Ltd. The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : The Addl. Cit, Range 1(1), Blue Star Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai Kasturi Building, Mohan T Advani Vs. Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb 4487 D (Revenue) : (Assessee)

backward areas of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and to generate employment opportunities. The same should be considered as capital in nature and hence not liable to tax. 3.0 In the computation of total income for the instant As:2sSment Year, the appellant has disallowed under clause () to section 43B, provision