“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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(1), Raipur vs. Shri Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 201/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Raipur16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 201/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Limited, 00, Vill. Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Raipur-493221. Pan : Aaccb2944D ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

complete a project and therefore the subsidy received is for capital purposes and therefore the subsidy so received is capital in nature not liable to tax. In case of Sahney Steel and Press works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. CIT 228 ITR 253, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the character

Legrand Nederland B.V., Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax 3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2487/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelegrand Nederland B.V. V. Acit (Intl. Taxation) – 3(1)(2) 16Th Floor, Air India Building 61/62, 6Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai Kalpatru Square, Kondivita Road Off. Andheri Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400059 Pan: Aaccl1156B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Prayas Jain Department Represented By : Shri Amit Kumar Soni

Section 10(34)Section 112(1)(c)Section 115Section 144C(5)Section 2(22)(d)Section 244ASection 270A

opinion that the alienation of shares was made to Novateur India, which is a resident of India. Hence, the capital gain is liable to tax in India. Further, the assessee's case does not fall under the expression "organization, reorganization, amalgamation, division or any transaction of similar nature

Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in view of the above mentioned terms

ITA 755/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Astha Chandralg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Plot No. 51, Udyog Vihar, Circle-2, Noida Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacl1745Q Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv, Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv Shri Ramit Katyal, Ar Mr. Aditya Vohra, Adv Revenue By: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144

been granted to the appellant for the purpose of setting up its factory in a notified area, would qualify as capital receipt, not liable to tax. 12.1 That the AO/DRP erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that purpose for which the subsidy or incentive is given would

Asst CIT 6 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chiripal Poly Films Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 258/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

been a settled position of law that any fiscal incentive provided which is not in the nature of income perse shall not liable to tax under the deeming provisions of section 115JB of the Act. 2.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case ... been a settled position of law that any fiscal incentive provided which is not in the nature of income perse shall not liable to tax under the deeming provisions of Section 115JB of the Act.” The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a private limited 3. company

M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3280/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

employees for services performed outside India. 7. The learned Deputy Director of Income tax erred in holding that the appellant was liable to tax in India under Article 15 of the Tax Treaty between India and U.K. The Deputy Director of Income tax ought to have appreciated that Article ... dated 7.9.2014 (for A.Y. 1998-99 and 2001-02), wherein it was held that only income related to services rendered in India, is liable to tax in India. Further, reliance was also placed by him upon the judgment of Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case

DDIT (It)-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

E Service Singapore Pte Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in :

ITA 573/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

technical knowledge, experience, skill in terms of Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA and as such, receipts in question were not FTS liable to tax in India. 17 Applying the same ratio, we are of the considered view that payments received from Mphasis Ltd were not covered by Article

E Service Singapore Pte Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in :

ITA 572/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

Hp Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in :

ITA 2142/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. vs. M/S Syndicate Bank, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 337/PAN/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Oct 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.337/Pan/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank, Central Accounts Department, Tax Cell, Head Officer, Manipal. Pan : Aaccs4699E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.01/Pan/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.337/Pan/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Canara Bank (Erstwhile Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi. Syndicate Bank), F.M. Wing, Head Office, 112, J. C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002. Pan : Aaacc6106G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani Assessee By : Shri S. Ananthan Smt. S. Lalitha R. Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri S. AnanthanFor Respondent: Smt. Ashwini D. Hosmani

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 244A

assessee is engaged in the business of banking, whose accounts were prepared in conformity with Bank Regulations Act, 1939 and, therefore, not liable to tax under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaya Bank ... Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed, as the relief sought by the assessee that the assessee company is not liable to tax on book profits under the provisions of section 115JB in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S Shankar Rice & General Mills, Moga vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

income and the case laws relied upon by the AO is not applicable and the additional income declared by the assessee is not liable to tax as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. Thus, in light of the above judgments, it can be concluded that the surrendered

Gunnebo, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1441/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Gunnebo Ab Acit (International बिधम/ Po Box No.5181, Goteberg, Taxation), Circle-2(3)(2) Vs. Sweden. Room No.2908, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre-1, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg9613J (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Pratik Shah/Riddhi Maru Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/PratikFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)

Section 139Section 14Section 143(3)Section 92C

nature of recovery of expenses on cost-to-cost basis and therefore in absence of any income element therein, no portion thereof was liable to tax in India. In 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Gunnebo AB support of the same, the Ld. AR invited our attention to Form 3CEB issued ... established beyond doubt that the recovery of expenses were on cost-to-cost basis and therefore the impugned sum was not liable to tax in India. 4. In his next line of argument, the Ld. AR contended that the Microsoft License Fees & Data Centre Charges was paid for acquiring right

The Supreme Industrial Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

subsidy of Rs.47,32,73,937/- credited in the Profit & Loss Account to be in the nature of capital receipt not liable to tax. The details are as under: - 10 A.Y. 2015-16 Supreme Industries Ltd. Sr. Unit Location Type of Mode of Amount No. package receiving the credited ... nature of refund of VAT/CST/Octroi/LBT/Excise/Electricity Duty and were, therefore, in 11 A.Y. 2015-16 Supreme Industries Ltd. the nature of revenue receipts liable to tax. On this reasoning, the claim of the assessee that the subsidy was a capital receipt was rejected

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It)-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Mckinsey & Company Singapore Pte Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2123/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Divesh Chawala, Ld. AR

Section 144CSection 250Section 92C

borrowed service fee payments received from McKinsey India cannot be considered as FIS/FTS under Article 12 of the Treaty and accordingly, are not liable to tax in India. Refer page 1 to 194 of paper book for copies of the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT. It is also ... technical knowledge, skill etc. to McKinsey India, therefore, the borrowed services fees should not be qualified as FTS and should not be liable to tax in India. The appellant has further submitted that the principle that services which does not make available technical knowledge/expertise cannot be regarded as FIS/FTS

Shre Vile Parle Gujarati Mandal Chsl, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 25(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manshi Padhiar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anurag Tripathi, DR

Section 249(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

received by the assessee Co-op Housing Society amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- is treated as a Revenue Receipt and it is liable to tax as income and they are not exempted on the principle of Mutuality. In view of the above, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars ... governed by principle of mutuality and therefore would not be exigible to tax. Further, transfer fee from outgoing or incoming parties is not liable to tax on the ground of principle of mutuality. Hence, respectfully following the judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, I am inclined to allow

Kraft Foods Group Brands Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2495/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Us Raising Following Grounds In Its Appeal: -

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

allocation in the agreement: (iii)As the FTS is taxable on gross basis, both under the ACT and the DTAA, the same is liable to taxed, irrespective of whether there was any markup or not. 11.3 The submissions of the assessee are considered in this background. The assessee has described

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

Assessing Officer to verify and examine and finalize the assessment in accordance with the prevailing law; quantify the correct income of the assessee liable to tax for AY 2017-18 after according reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd. The order ... earning exempted income in subseqent year. It will be appreciated that the provisions of Sec. 80(M) is clear that the dividend income liable to tax and is exempt only to the extent of the dividend distributed by the assesse company. Thus, if the assesse company’s distribution is exempt

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

verification and examine in depth the issues discussed above in accordance with the prevailing law to determine the correct income of the assessee liable to tax for the A.Y.2016-17 after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee.” 5. Aggrieved from the above order of the PCIT passed

ACIT (It) 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1592/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

received by the assessee towards Juniper Services are not in the nature of "royalty" under the DTAA between India and Netherlands and not liable to tax accordingly. 26. The Assessing Officer, besides holding the payments received by the assessee are in the nature of "Royalty" also held that the same

ACIT (It) 3(1) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Juniper Networks Int. B.V., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1591/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()