Commissioner of Income-tax v. MJ. & P. Ginning & Pressing Factory

60 ITR 95Supreme Court of India1966#18191 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 142 section 142(1)person section 14 business document

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. MJ. & P. Ginning & Pressing Factory

GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2767/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 68

…rovisos to section 68 of the Act are not applicable to transactions between the assessee (FIRM) and its partners and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muralidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95 (SC). 5. The ld. AR argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed to note that no violation under the provisions of section 269SS of the Act with reference to the said transaction and drew our attention to the order dated 24.06.2020 in the hands of Danasekaran Sambandam passed under section 271D of the Act and argued that the penalty proceedings initiated und…

VIVEK INDUSTRIES,VIJAYAWADA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

ITA 133/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.133/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Vivek Industries, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8-1, Kamayyathopu Kanuru, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Aanfm5215A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 20/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 150Section 54DSection 54F

…cannot be assessed in the assessment of the firm. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Murlidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory (1966) 60 ITR 95 (SC) and the circulars issued by the CBDT are applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that when the income is assessed in the hands of the members of AOP or the partners of the firm, it cannot be assessed in the assessment of the firm. 8. The learned Commissioner of Inc…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI vs. GNP REALTY LLP, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 3105/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 250

…ts which have held that the same income cannot be taxed twice in the hands of two separate entities: • Laxmipat Singhania v CIT (72 ITR 291) (SC) • Joti Prasad Agarwal vs. ITO [37 ITR 107] [AII] • CIT vs. Murlidhar Jhawar & Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory [60 ITR 95] 9.12 M/s GNP Realty LLP is a Limited Liability Partnership formed and incorporated on 21.12.2017 under The Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 with a main object of acquiring, exploring, prospecting, developing and operating into business of Mining activities. During the appeal proceedings, the assesse has filed its financial statements. A re…

DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIPENDU BAPALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4751/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

Section 114Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 6

…t was further observed that: "... the Act does not envisage taxation of the same income twice over 'on one passage of money in the form of one sort of income'." The same view is taken in Commissioner of Income-tax v. MJ. & P. Ginning & Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95 (SC). Thus, the position that section 4 of the Act (corresponding to section 3 of the 1922 Act) impliedly prohibits double taxation is accepted by the courts. If one of the entities has been taxed, it is not open to the taxation department to tax another entity for the same income. This maxim was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case o…

M/S. KEC- SIDHARTHA (J.V.),GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5943/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2012-13 Kec – Sidhartha (J.V.), Ito, Ward- 11(2), 8Th Floor, Building No.9A, Gurgaon. Vs. Dlf Cyber City, Phase- 3, Gurgaon. Pan : Aabak 1448 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

…ued by the CBDT after the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Murlidhar Jhawar & Puma Ginning & Pressing Factory and the CBDT instructed the department as under: "The effect of this decision – CIT v. Murlidhar Jhawar & Puma Ginning & Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95 (SC) is that once the income tax Officer assesses directly an assessee's share of income from an association of persons or firm, it is not open to him to assess the same income again in the hands of the association of persons or firm. In other words, once the assessment of a partner or a member of an association has been made by taxing directly his…