← 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

DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. Anand Persad Jaiswal, New Dehi

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2742/DEL/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2003-04 The Dcit, Central Circle-04, New Delhi Anand Persad Jaiswal, 54, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, New Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Adrpj 2549 M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr For Assessee: Shri Deepchand Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-23, New Delhi Dated 25.08.2022 For Ay 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing The Assessment Order Relying On The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Brahm. Dutt (100 Taxmann.Com 324) Without Appreciating That The Amendment To Sec 149(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Finance Act, 2021 Was Retrospective In Nature In View Of Explanation To Sec 149 As Held By Itat (D Bench Mumbai) In The Case Of Dilip J. Thakkar (135 Taxmann.Com 208) After Considering The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In Brahm Dutt (Supra).

For Appellant: Shri Deepchand Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

accrue or arise in India and thus the ld. CIT(A) was correct and justified in holding that the same was not liable to tax in India in the hands of non-resident Indian assessee. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the conclusion drawn

Hireright Limited, London vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Int. Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2019-20

ITA 1884/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21 & Asstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234DSection 270A

India would not fall within the purview of Article 13 of the India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (“India-UK DTAA”) and liable to tax in India and why the payment received by the assessee from Indian entity should not be taxable as Fees for Technical Services

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand) Limited, Thailand vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 726/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

examined in the proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act and the Assessing Officer accepted that these incomes are not liable to tax. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer in these assessment years are as under:- ITA. No. 726/Del/2023 AND ITA. Nos. 2192 & 2193/Del/2022 Assessment Year

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2193/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

examined in the proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act and the Assessing Officer accepted that these incomes are not liable to tax. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer in these assessment years are as under:- ITA. No. 726/Del/2023 AND ITA. Nos. 2192 & 2193/Del/2022 Assessment Year

Bombardier Transportation Signal (Thailand ) Limited, Thailand vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(2) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2192/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Anubhav Rastogi, &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 263Section 90(2)

examined in the proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act and the Assessing Officer accepted that these incomes are not liable to tax. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer in these assessment years are as under:- ITA. No. 726/Del/2023 AND ITA. Nos. 2192 & 2193/Del/2022 Assessment Year

M/S Sulaikha Clay Mines, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

value being maintained and not eroded. The same is thus in the nature of a capital allowance, i.e., on capital account, not liable to tax deduction at source. The same did not find favour with the Revenue as the payment, whatever be the impact of the user of land thereon

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 627/COCH/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

value being maintained and not eroded. The same is thus in the nature of a capital allowance, i.e., on capital account, not liable to tax deduction at source. The same did not find favour with the Revenue as the payment, whatever be the impact of the user of land thereon

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 626/COCH/2022[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

value being maintained and not eroded. The same is thus in the nature of a capital allowance, i.e., on capital account, not liable to tax deduction at source. The same did not find favour with the Revenue as the payment, whatever be the impact of the user of land thereon

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 625/COCH/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

value being maintained and not eroded. The same is thus in the nature of a capital allowance, i.e., on capital account, not liable to tax deduction at source. The same did not find favour with the Revenue as the payment, whatever be the impact of the user of land thereon

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 624/COCH/2022[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

value being maintained and not eroded. The same is thus in the nature of a capital allowance, i.e., on capital account, not liable to tax deduction at source. The same did not find favour with the Revenue as the payment, whatever be the impact of the user of land thereon

Sulaikha Clay Mines, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals for all the years are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/COCH/2022[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Aug 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Muhammad Shafeeq A., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

value being maintained and not eroded. The same is thus in the nature of a capital allowance, i.e., on capital account, not liable to tax deduction at source. The same did not find favour with the Revenue as the payment, whatever be the impact of the user of land thereon

Virendra Bhavanji Gala, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 263

respect to the information in question, vide letter dated 29/03/2022 explaining that no income had escaped assessment and the damages received were not liable to tax. 7 Shri Virendra Bhavanji Gala From the records it appears that after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s. 148A(d) dated 07/04/2022

ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi vs. V C Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. P. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)

compromise, remission of such balance amount amounted to remission of trading liability within meaning of section 10(2A) of 1922 Act which was liable to tax”. 9. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the forfeiture of share application money as capital in nature. The details

Shri Saileshbhai Shambhubhai Hirpara, Jetpur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: None
Section 1Section 10(24)Section 144Section 14A

profit of Rs. 19095448/- from that firm. On this share of profit of Rs. 19093448/- from Nisan Exports, though this income is not liable to tax in the hands of the assessee, the firm of Nisan Exports has paid the tax thereon and therefore the same cannot be termed

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that

Columbus Overseas LLP, 16, Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

required to make necessary verification and finalize the assessment in accordance with the prevailing law to determine the correct income of the assessee liable to tax for the A.Y.2018-19 after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the ld. PCIT

D C Polyester Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyald. C. Polyester Limited S. V. Industrial Estate, Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aaacd3816C ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cc – 6(4), R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assets written off and claimed under the head income under the head Business or Profession is concerned, it is noted that assessee was liable to Tax Audit u/s. 44AB of the Act and also under the Companies Act, 2013. Such type of accounting treatment and further claim under the Income

Shri Gurmeet Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 ( 3), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed for

ITA 148/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgl, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271FSection 69

rate of tax on the income of the appellant, as determined by the AO and restricted to Rs. 8,41,500/- only, is liable to tax rates as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961, as it was applicable during the period of the previous

Shri Gurmeet Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (3), Bathinda

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed for

ITA 147/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgl, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271FSection 69

rate of tax on the income of the appellant, as determined by the AO and restricted to Rs. 8,41,500/- only, is liable to tax rates as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income tax Act, 1961, as it was applicable during the period of the previous

Shalini Gupta, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

ITA 628/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmashalini Gupta Vs. Acit, Habsburger Str 7, Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) Duesseldorf 4057, New Delhi Germany 999999 Pan : Bnrpg7735F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 147Section 69

also her income in India comprised of interest income amounting to Rs. 968/- only which was much below the minimum income liable to tax in India therefore, she claims that she was not liable to file any Income Tax Return in India. 2.1 The background of the issue is that