ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor

60 ITR 74Supreme Court of India1966#1903 most cited

What is ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor authority for?

Income must be charged only once, preventing double taxation. If income is mistakenly assessed in the hands of individual members instead of the Association of Persons or Hindu Undivided Family, or vice versa, the Income Tax Officer must make appropriate adjustments for the tax already realized.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor · 60 ITR 74 · double taxation · income once charged · assessment of AOP · assessment of HUF · members vs. association · appropriate adjustments · Section 34 (1922 Act) · Section 147 · Section 148 · tax realized

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 26Section 50CSection 112Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 14(1)section 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 153(a)(1)section 250(1)section 45(2)project completion methodsection 145(1)section 53asection 2(47)(v)section 53

Judgments citing ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor

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

…is the “right person” liable to be assessed to tax with respect to capital gain arising from the sale of the subject property. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Lucknow vs. Bachulal Kapoor (1996) 60 ITR 74 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in its order had observed that where an income is wrongly assessed in the hands of the wrong entity, then, the AO while assessing the said entity in the correct status shall allow the credit of corresponding taxes which was paid by the wrong entity qua the income that was wrongly disclosed in its hands. 23. We, thus, i…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. DOUBLE PLUS SOFTWARE P.LTD, NEDW DELHI

ITA 4745/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…in IA No.GA/2/2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata, the judgment passed in the matter of PCIT vs. M/s. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Private Limited in ITAT/71/2024 passed by Kolkata High Court and in the matter of ITO vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor, reported in 60 ITR 74 (SC) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 16. Ld. DR relied upon the submissions made by him before ITAT in the first round of litigation and relied upon the order passed by the Ld. Α.Ο. 17. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. 18. It is an undisputed fact that three…

TIRUMALA ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 143/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 194I

…cted at Source (TDS) on the subject income. Our aforesaid view that the income and deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) must go hand-in-hand is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Lucknow Vs. Bachulal Kapoor, (1966) 60 ITR 74 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its order, had observed that, in the context of the facts involved in the case before them, that if the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1962, in the hands of the members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) culminated in an assessment order passed in the hands of the HUF, the…

GOKUL PRASAD PATEL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-13(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 353/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 64(1)(iv)

…the impugned “capital gain” in his hands 12 Gokul Prasad Patel, Hyderabad. under Sectio 64(1)(iv) of the Act in A.Y. 2004-05. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO, Lucknow Vs. Bachulal Kapoor (1996) 60 ITR 74 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in its order, had observed in the context of the facts involved in the case before them, that if the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 in the hands of the individual members of the HUF culminated in the assessment of HUF, then the appropriate adjustment is to be made by the IT…

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. SANJAY CHOWDARY GADDIPATI, HYDERABAD

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

…would tantamount to double taxation in the hands of the\nassessee which is de hors Article 265 of the Constitution of India.\nOur aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of ITO, Lucknow Vs. Bachulal\nKapoor (1996) 60 ITR 74 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in its\norder, had observed in the context of the facts involved in the case\nbefore them, that if the assessment proceedings initiated under\nSection 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 in the hands of the\nindividual members of the HUF culminated in the assessment of\nHUF, then the appropriate adjustment is to be made by t…

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ion, as there is no prejudice caused to the interest the revenue, the proceedings lack jurisdiction and referred to section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) 60 ITR 74 (at Page 143 Paragraph 8-10 of ADP), held that the charge is to be levied on an income only once and held that there could not be fresh assessment in the hands of the Association of Persons, when the income has been charged in the hands of the members of the association. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if under some mistake, the inc…

PARVEEN,VPO KHANDA KHERI vs. ITO, WARD-1, HISAR, HISAR

ITA 4745/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…in IA No.GA/2/2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata, the judgment passed in the matter of PCIT vs. M/s. Lal Baba Seamless Tubes Private Limited in ITAT/71/2024 passed by Kolkata High Court and in the matter of ITO vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor, reported in 60 ITR 74 (SC) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 16. Ld. DR relied upon the submissions made by him before ITAT in the first round of litigation and relied upon the order passed by the Ld. Α.Ο. 17. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. 18. It is an undisputed fact that three…

DUTTA ENGINEERING WORKS,BHILAI,DURG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,1(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 176/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 176/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dutta Engineering Works 18K, Heavy Industrial Area, Bhilai Dist. Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aahfd0741J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…respect of the taxes realized by the department on the said amount in the aforesaid preceding year, i.e., A.Y.2013-14. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer V/s. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC). 9 Dutta Engineering Works Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 11. The Ground of appeal No.3, being general, is dismissed as not pressed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 19th day of October, 2023. ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNT…

WORLD SPORT GROUP (MAURITIUS) LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2023AY 2010-11
Section 115ASection 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 6(3)(ii)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ee Dayabai v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 248 (MP)). In any event, if, at the stage of the Tribunal or High Court it is found that the same income is assessed in both places, the Department should provide relief suo motu to one of them. (ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC)). There can be precautionary assessments but not protective recovery. (CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 655 (Ker.)). But where an assessment is intended to be protective, it should be so expressed. (CIT v. Khalid Mehdi [1987] 165 ITR 685 (AP)). 18. A protective assessment as the learned author indicates (Vol. 1 page 272) is regarded…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ITA NO 100012 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1 . THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1(3) BENGALURU. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND: M/S OBULAPURAM MINING COMPANY PVT. LIMITED NO.6/4, RAGHAVACHARI ROAD BALLARI-583101 PAN: AAACO5753D. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAYANK JAIN, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 740/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 29 completion method will result in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) (60 ITR 74) (SC), wherein held that: “A HUF is a separate unit of assessment. It is a distinct assessable entity. It is a “person” within its definition in the Act. It is liable to be assessed to income-tax in respect of its income. A member of that HUF is not liable to pay any tax in respect of any sum which he receives as a member of that family out f the…

CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 580/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

…Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 29 completion method will result in double taxation, which is impermissible in law. For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) (60 ITR 74) (SC), wherein held that: “A HUF is a separate unit of assessment. It is a distinct assessable entity. It is a “person” within its definition in the Act. It is liable to be assessed to income-tax in respect of its income. A member of that HUF is not liable to pay any tax in respect of any sum which he receives as a member of that family out f the…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 109/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Deputy Commissioner Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. of Income-tax No.2/55/1, Outer Ring Road Central Circle-2(2) Opp. Lumbini Garen, Veeranna Bengaluru Vs. Palya Nagavara, Bengaluru 560 045 PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Advocate Responde…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 108/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Deputy Commissioner Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. of Income-tax No.2/55/1, Outer Ring Road Central Circle-2(2) Opp. Lumbini Garen, Veeranna Bengaluru Vs. Palya Nagavara, Bengaluru 560 045 PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Advocate Responde…

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 250

…ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Deputy Commissioner Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. of Income-tax No.2/55/1, Outer Ring Road Central Circle-2(2) Opp. Lumbini Garen, Veeranna Bengaluru Vs. Palya Nagavara, Bengaluru 560 045 PAN NO : AADCT3672P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri A. Shankar, Senior Advocate Responde…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…icer that the income offered in the subsequent years is income of the impugned assessment year will result in double taxation which is impermissible in law. 8.2 We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) (60 ITR 74) (SC), wherein held that: ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 53 of 96 “A HUF is a separate unit of assessment. It is a distinct assessable entity. It is a “person” within its definition in the Act. It is liable to be assessed to income-tax in respect of its income. A member of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…icer that the income offered in the subsequent years is income of the impugned assessment year will result in double taxation which is impermissible in law. 8.2 We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) (60 ITR 74) (SC), wherein held that: ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 53 of 96 “A HUF is a separate unit of assessment. It is a distinct assessable entity. It is a “person” within its definition in the Act. It is liable to be assessed to income-tax in respect of its income. A member of…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…icer that the income offered in the subsequent years is income of the impugned assessment year will result in double taxation which is impermissible in law. 8.2 We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) (60 ITR 74) (SC), wherein held that: ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore Page 53 of 96 “A HUF is a separate unit of assessment. It is a distinct assessable entity. It is a “person” within its definition in the Act. It is liable to be assessed to income-tax in respect of its income. A member of…

JAYANT KANERIA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1719/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1719/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…See Dayabai v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 248 (MP). In any event, if, at the stage of the Tribunal or High Court it is found that the same income is assessed in both places, the Department should provide relief suo motu to one of them. (ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC). There can be precautionary assessments but not protective recovery. (CIT v. Cochin Co.Pvt. Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 655 (Ker.). But where an assessment is intended to be protective, it should be so expressed. (CIT v. Khalid Mehdi [1987] 165 ITR 685 (AP). 18. A protective assessment as the learned author indicates (Vol. 1 Page 272) is regarded as…

MICROSOFT REGIONAL SALES CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2)(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 6832/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(13)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271

…s of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in not transferring the TDS credit claimed by MRSC to MOL Corporation in view of the mandatory directions of Hon’ble DRP and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Bachu Lai Kapoor (60 ITR 74) (1966) (SC). Other Grounds 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in levying surcharge and education cess on interest on income-tax refund, which is taxable as per the at the rate of 15% as prescribed under the India - USA DTAA. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law…

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (60 ITR 74) — Cited in 60 Judgments | BharatTax