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 366,339 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

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3953/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…necessary consequence, to exclude the amount offered for tax in the former assessment year; otherwise the same would result in double taxation, contrary to law. In the context, he relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT: 72 ITR 291 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Precision Metal Work: 156 ITR 693 (Del). ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 4.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. The Learned CIT-DR contended that there is no error…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3952/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…necessary consequence, to exclude the amount offered for tax in the former assessment year; otherwise the same would result in double taxation, contrary to law. In the context, he relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT: 72 ITR 291 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Precision Metal Work: 156 ITR 693 (Del). ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 4.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. The Learned CIT-DR contended that there is no error…

ACIT, CC- 26, New Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3951/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…necessary consequence, to exclude the amount offered for tax in the former assessment year; otherwise the same would result in double taxation, contrary to law. In the context, he relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT: 72 ITR 291 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Precision Metal Work: 156 ITR 693 (Del). ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 4.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. The Learned CIT-DR contended that there is no error…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2894/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…necessary consequence, to exclude the amount offered for tax in the former assessment year; otherwise the same would result in double taxation, contrary to law. In the context, he relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT: 72 ITR 291 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Precision Metal Work: 156 ITR 693 (Del). ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 4.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. The Learned CIT-DR contended that there is no error…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2893/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…necessary consequence, to exclude the amount offered for tax in the former assessment year; otherwise the same would result in double taxation, contrary to law. In the context, he relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT: 72 ITR 291 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Precision Metal Work: 156 ITR 693 (Del). ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 4.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. The Learned CIT-DR contended that there is no error…

Sh. Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 2892/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Krishan Kumar Modi, Acit, A-1, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle – 2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Vs (Pan: Aanpm0159M)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, C.I.T. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 69A

…necessary consequence, to exclude the amount offered for tax in the former assessment year; otherwise the same would result in double taxation, contrary to law. In the context, he relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachul Lal Kapoor: 60 ITR 74 (SC) and Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT: 72 ITR 291 (SC) and the Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Precision Metal Work: 156 ITR 693 (Del). ITA 2892 to 2894/D/2017 ITA 3952 to 3956/D/2017 4.0 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions of the assessee. The Learned CIT-DR contended that there is no error…

DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon vs. M/S Mol Corporation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 106/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R.K. Pand & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Mol Corporation Tax (International Taxation), C/O Mr. Ashwin Circle, Gurgaon Ravinderanath (Partner) Srbc & Associates Llp Golf View Corporate Tower, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon – 112202 (Pan : Aafcm9676A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G. K.Dhall, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2018 Order

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 154Section 199Section 234Section 234ASection 234B

…as agreed by both the sides that the matter needs to be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh in the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor Kewal Ram reported in 60 ITR 74. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that specific time limit should be prescribed to the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to adjudicate the issue regarding granti…

Mol Corporation, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1714/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 1714/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Mol Corporation, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C/O Mr. Ashwin Ravindranath Tax, International Taxation, Circle- (Partner), Srbc & Associates Gurgaon, New Delhi Llp, Golf View Corporate Tower B, Sector-42, Sector Road, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcm9676A Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. G. K. Dhall, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2014 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

…ed in favor of taxpayers on this issue. 8.2 which is otherwise not leviable as DRP has directed the Ld. AO for transferring the TDS credit claimed by MRSC to the appellant and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of ITO vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor (60 ITR 74) (1966) (SC). The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and / or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal. The appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds of appeal.” 3. From the above grounds, it is g…

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

…e said two entities, that is, an association of persons or the individual members of an association, according to the provisions of the Act. Joti Prasad's case (supra) was also referred to by that Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74, 79, 80 (SC), in which it was observed that: "The exercise of the option to do one or other of the two alternatives open to an officer assumes knowledge on his part of the existence of two alternatives." And it 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 on…

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)

…nd the fundamental rule of taxation is that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. This principle is well settled and the Supreme Court has reiterated the same in its decision in the case of ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor Kewal Ram [1966] 60 ITR 74 , the Supreme Court said that "the Act does not envisage taxation of the same income twice ."This view was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT[1969] 72 ITR 291, where it has said that it is fundamental rule of the law of taxation that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice and be…

Susanta Biswas, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1338/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri H.S Bhattacharjee,AR for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nts and it will be shown when the right to receive the income accrued to the assessee. The Assessee relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT reported in [1969] 71 ITR 291 (SC) and ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC) for the proposition that the same income cannot be taxed twice. 7. Further, the Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank of vs. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 for the that real income theory cannot be ignored by holding that the Balance Sheet to be maintained in a particular form. 8. For the proposition t…

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 960/KOL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 960/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2000-01 D.C.I.T., Circle-8, -Vs.- M/S. Premier Road Carriers Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcr8968E] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. Cit For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 2.12.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Alam, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 158B

…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 indicates5 is regarded as being protective beca…

Mol Corporation, Gurgaon vs. Addl. DIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 6089/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dheeraj Batnagar, CIT
Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 9(1)(vi)

…on facts and in law, the Learned AO 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 decision of ITO vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor (60 ITR 74) (1966) (SC). 5 That the Ld. AO and DRP has grossly erred on facts and in law in allowing the credit for TDS of Rs. 214,83,30,661 instead of Rs. 270,17,14,077 as claimed by the appellant in the return of income. 6 That the Ld. AO and DRP has grossly erred on facts and in law in levying surcharge and education cess on the income which is assessed to…

Mrs. Sharon Nayak, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1594/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.1594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Sharon Nayak, 203, Inland Exotic Apt, 14, Benson Road, Bangalore 560 046 .. Appellant Pan : Abkpn7007P V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 161Section 17(3)Section 56Section 56(2)(i)Section 56(2)(vi)

…regate liability of the beneficiaries. Ld. AR submitted that taxing the amount distributed by the trust to the beneficiary would result in taxing the same income twice. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITO v. Kewal Ram [60 ITR 74]. Thus according to him, direction given by the CIT (A) to tax the sum u/s.56(2)(vi) of the Act, had to be set aside. 11. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supporting the order of CIT (A) submitted that reliance placed by the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Indramma (supra) was incorrect. According to hi…

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 749/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.749 to 752/Bang/2012 & 1588 to 1591/Bang/2012 Assessment years : 2006-07 to 2009-10 IBM India Private Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) No.12, Subramanya Arcade, LTU, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 093. PAN: AAACI 4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR) Date of hearing : 24.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2015 O R D E R Per Bench These are batch o…

Ibm India Pvt. Ltd vs. I.T.O. (TDS), Bangalore

ITA 1588/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR)
Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.749 to 752/Bang/2012 & 1588 to 1591/Bang/2012 Assessment years : 2006-07 to 2009-10 IBM India Private Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS) No.12, Subramanya Arcade, LTU, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 093. PAN: AAACI 4403L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I(DR) Date of hearing : 24.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2015 O R D E R Per Bench These are batch o…

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/1931/2010HC Delhi30 Sept 2011

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ed the counsel, it amounts to double taxation, which is impermissible having regard to the ITA No.1931 of 2010 Page 12 of 13 judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, ‘A’ Ward, Lucknow Vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor, 60 ITR 74, Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income Vs. CIT, U.P., 72 ITR 291 and the judgment of this Court in CIT, Delhi (Central) Vs. R. Dalmia, 135 ITR 346. 13. We are not convinced with the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal exceeded his power in discussing this issue. Not only it was inextricably mixed with the…

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

ITA-1931/2010HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…t amounts to double taxation, which is impermissible having regard to the 2011:DHC:5132-DB ITA No.1931 of 2010 Page 12 of 13 judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, ‘A’ Ward, Lucknow Vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor, 60 ITR 74, Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income Vs. CIT, U.P., 72 ITR 291 and the judgment of this Court in CIT, Delhi (Central) Vs. R. Dalmia, 135 ITR 346. 13. We are not convinced with the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal exceeded his power in discussing this issue. Not only it was inextricably mixed with the…

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

ARB.A.-ITA/1931HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…t amounts to double taxation, which is impermissible having regard to the 2011:DHC:5133-DB ITA No.1931 of 2010 Page 12 of 13 judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, ‘A’ Ward, Lucknow Vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor, 60 ITR 74, Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income Vs. CIT, U.P., 72 ITR 291 and the judgment of this Court in CIT, Delhi (Central) Vs. R. Dalmia, 135 ITR 346. 13. We are not convinced with the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal exceeded his power in discussing this issue. Not only it was inextricably mixed with the…

Ifci Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 1931 / 2010HC Delhi30 Sept 2011
Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…t amounts to double taxation, which is impermissible having regard to the 2011:DHC:5132-DB ITA No.1931 of 2010 Page 12 of 13 judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, ‘A’ Ward, Lucknow Vs. Bachu Lal Kapoor, 60 ITR 74, Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income Vs. CIT, U.P., 72 ITR 291 and the judgment of this Court in CIT, Delhi (Central) Vs. R. Dalmia, 135 ITR 346. 13. We are not convinced with the plea of the learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal exceeded his power in discussing this issue. Not only it was inextricably mixed with the…