“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

Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd As Trustee for Fccb Issued by Jindal Saw Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 784/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Citicorp Trustee Company बिधम/ Dcit (International Ltd. As Trustee For Fccb Taxation)-2(1)(1) Vs. Issued By Jindal Saw Ltd. 17Th Floor, 1713, Air India Citigroup Centre, Canada Building, Nariman Point, Square, Canary Wharf Mumbai-400021. London E14 5Lb United Kingdom. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc0452D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anish Thackar/Nikhil Tiwari/Lekh Mehta Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 19.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice The Ground No. 2 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Against The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Essential Condition Prescribed Under The Act; & Therefore Contends That The Action Of The Ao Is Ab-Initio-Void. 3. In Order To Examine The Legal Issue Raised By The Assessee, It Is Necessary To Look Into The Reasons Recorded By Ao To Reopen The Assessment Which Is Reproduced As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thackar/NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 201(1)Section 5(2)(b)Section 6

purpose of business outside India or for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source outside India is not liable to tax in India as there is no income that had accrued or arisen in India to recipient within the meaning of section ... have accrued, arisen in India. The provisions of section 9 spells out the instance of the income as non-resident would be liable to tax in India. The provisions of section 9(1)(v) spells out when the interest income is deemed to have accrued arisen in India, received

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 717/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Everest Industries Ltd., Dcit, Circle-1, D-206, Sector-63, Noida- Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- Vs. 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Circle-1, Everest Industries Ltd., Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B- G-1, A-32, Genesis Mohan Vs. Wing 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Coop. Industries, Mathura Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. Road, New Delhi-110044. Pan No. Aaace 7550 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

eligible units under the said notification, was a capital appellant's eligible units under the said notification, was a capital receipt not liable to tax. In the case of DCIT Vs. Reliance Industries receipt not liable to tax. In the case of DCIT Vs. Reliance Industries receipt not liable

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas

ITA 1421/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar a/w Mr. Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

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

Escorts Ltd (2007) 15 SOT 368 (Delhi) held that if the recipient of if the recipient of income considers that he is not liable to tax in respect of income, income considers that he is not liable to tax in respect of income, income considers that he is not liable ... Government. If the recipient of the income considers that he Government. If the recipient of the income considers that he is not liable to tax in respect of the income, wholly or partly, is not liable to tax in respect of the income, wholly or partly, is not liable

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

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

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationl Taxation)Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 919/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

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

Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 27

case for AY 2001-02 to 2003-04 wherein interest paid by assessee to Head Office/overseas branches was held to be not liable to tax, following was the precise observation of the Tribunal in its order dated 20-6-2012 for AY 2002-03:- “3. The solitary issue involved ... data processing fees paid by the assessee to its overseas branch at Singpore is in the nature of income and are not liable to tax?” “ The question as proposed has became academic in view of the fact that the alternative submission made by the respondent before the authorities was that

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

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

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

computed as if it were income derived from business, and forty per cent of such income shall be deemed to be income liable to tax. Rule 8 provides for a legal fiction for determining what part of the income of an assessee, who engages in the growing of tea leaves ... manufacture of tea, would be regarded as being attributable to income from the manufacturing operations and liable to tax. As a result of the fiction brought in by Rule 8, the entire income M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. which is derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Raipur vs. Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka, Pandri

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 77/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Assistant Commissioner – Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs Prop. Goyal Sales, Central Circle -2, Raipur. Behind Mata Garage, Near Jai Bhole Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadpf 2412 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ca सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2023

For Appellant: DR Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr

Section 115Section 115BSection 133A

judgment of Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. Baskar Mitter (supra), wherein, the assessee was held that the assessee is liable to tax upon only such income which can be included in his total income and lawfully assessed under the act, has no relevance in the present

Tulsidas V. Patel Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Prakash K. JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 234B

expenses and setting off the losses arising from incidental business activities. The Assessing Officer was of the view that Lease & License Fee was liable to tax under the head „Income from House Property‟ and therefore, show cause notice was issued to the Appellant asking the Appellant to explain why Leave

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Chennai Continer Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 894/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

tax : 2. erred in not appreciating the fact that receipt by way of duty credit entitlement is capital in nature and hence not liable to tax at all; 3. should have appreciated that the object of the scheme is to accelerate growth in export of services, so as to create ... tax: 2 erred in not appreciating the fact that receipt by way of duty credit entitlement is capital in nature and hence not liable to tax at all; 3. should have appreciated that the object of the scheme is to accelerate growth in export of services. so as to create

DCIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Chennai Continer Terminal P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 893/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

Chennai Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1119/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

Chennai Container Terminal P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1118/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 92C

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

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2289/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sarva Capital Llc, Versus Acit, Circle 3(1)(2), C/O Dinesh Mehta & Co., Cas, International Taxation, 21, Dayanand Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaccl0102B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Hiren Mehta, Ca & Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

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) of the Treaty. Thus, he submitted ... Mauritius as it has nil or negligible business; that the assessee cannot be a tax resident of Mauritius , as it is not 11 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

ACIT, Circle-18(2), Noida vs. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

result of the account are referred back to the chargeable accounting period during which they have accrued or arisen and the assessee is liable to tax in respect of the same during that chargeable accounting period. "The computation of the profits whenever it may take place cannot possibly be allowed