CIT v. Surat Cotton

202 ITR 932High Court1993#4632 most cited

What is CIT v. Surat Cotton authority for?

Income should be taxed only once in the hands of the rightful assessee; substantive assessments cannot be made simultaneously on multiple legal heirs.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Surat Cotton · 202 ITR 932 · taxing income multiple hands · substantive assessment · legal heirs · protective assessment · section 159

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 69Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 156Section 159

Issues it is cited on

commercial substancesection 159substantive assessmentrelated party transactionlegal representativestatement under section 132(4)retracted statementbusiness expediencysection 156protective assessmentsection 292bcolourable device

Judgments citing CIT v. Surat Cotton

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…es creates legal lacunae in recovery and is contrary to settled legal principles, which mandates that income should be taxed only once in the hands of the rightful assessee. 15.3 Citing judicial precedents in the cases such as CIT v. Surat Cotton reported in 202 ITR 932, CIT v. Durgawati reported in 202 ITR 932 (Bombay-HC), and Jagannath Hanumanbux v. ITO reported in 31 ITR 603, the learned AR emphasizes that taxing the same income in different hands is impermissible under law. Substantive assessments cannot be made simultaneously on multiple legal heirs. At best, the AO could have . ITA No.1442 to 1447, 2129 t…

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 1443/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…reates legal lacunae in recovery and is contrary to settled legal principles, which mandates that income should be taxed only once in the hands of the rightful assessee. 15.3 Citing judicial precedents in the cases such as CIT v. Surat Cotton reported in 202 ITR 932, CIT v. Durgawati reported in 202 ITR 932 (Bombay-HC), and Jagannath Hanumanbux v. ITO reported in 31 ITR 603, the learned AR emphasizes that taxing the same income in different hands is impermissible under law. Substantive assessments cannot be made simultaneously on multiple legal heirs. At best, the AO could have ITA No.1442 to 1447, 212…

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 1442/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…creates legal lacunae in recovery and is contrary to settled legal principles, which mandates that income should be taxed only once in the hands of the rightful assessee. 15.3 Citing judicial precedents in the cases such as CIT v. Surat Cotton reported in 202 ITR 932, CIT v. Durgawati reported in 202 ITR 932 (Bombay-HC), and Jagannath Hanumanbux v. ITO reported in 31 ITR 603, the learned AR emphasizes that taxing the same income in different hands is impermissible under law. Substantive assessments cannot be made simultaneously on multiple legal heirs. At best, the AO could have ITA No.1442 to 1447, 212…

Malkiat Agro Industries 01, Cantt Road, Nabha 147201, Punjab vs. Lovish Shelley the DCIT Circle Mandigobind Garh Jao Income Tax Officer Nabha, Punjab

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri K.K. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

…Account and further making the addition on account of 'cash deposits' would amount to double addition as per binding judgment of Gujarat High in the case of President Industries, 258 ITR 654 and of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Surat Cotton, 202 ITR 932. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 8. The Ld. Counsel argued before us that the bank accounts, where the cash deposits made are regular bank accounts of the assessee, and such deposits are duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the partnership fi…

Rajesh Poddar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 7(4), Mumbai

In the result we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and decide the issue in favour of assessee

ITA 2110/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri C.N. Prasad (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…he assessee. Moreover this aspect is only of academic interest as addition has not been made by the assessing officer as deemed dividend. Moreover as held by honourable jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT versus Surat Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills (202 ITR 932) once the assessing officer has assessed a particular receipt under a particular head of income the amount is no more available to him for assessment under another head 17 Mr. Rajesh Poddar 30. As regards the reference of learned Departmental Representative the decision of assessee’s wife in ITAT, we note that the said issue was dealt with by t…