What is Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT authority for?

Income cannot be taxed twice unless expressly provided by law. Income accrued in a particular year must be included in that year's total income and cannot be ignored to be taxed in a subsequent year based on receipt.

How many judgments cite Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT?

81 judgments on BharatTax cite Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT (72 ITR 291), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 115BBE, Section 142(1), Section 68, Section 132.

Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT (72 ITR 291)

Mudra Industries, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 380/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. B. R. Sudheendra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 44A

…ely, the interest expenditure should also be allowed to the assessee. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty and Co. (P) Ltd., Vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 731 (Madras) & Laxmipat Singhania vs CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291(SC). 8. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the assessee has filed ITR-4 Sugam which is applicable to the return of income for the presumptive income from business and profession as prescribed for the year under consideration for eligible assessee for eligible business. In the return of income, the assessee itself has shown as (0124)…

Commissioner of Income Ta, Kolkata - II vs. M/S. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. L

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/331/2008HC Calcutta01 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St May 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2.

Section 43BSection 43D

…) sought to be relied upon on behalf of the revenue actually supports the plea of the assessee in its contention that interest income is taxable only upon maturity when the right to receive interest accrued to the assessee. In Laxmipat Singhania v CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), relied upon on behalf of the revenue it was held that where the amount had escaped assessment on accrual basis it could not be taxed in another year on the basis of receipt. No such situation has arisen in the instant case inasmuch as accrual of interest is only upon maturity and there is no question of any income escaping assessment on accr…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corp. Ltd

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/1/2018HC Calcutta01 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St May 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2.

Section 43BSection 43D

…) sought to be relied upon on behalf of the revenue actually supports the plea of the assessee in its contention that interest income is taxable only upon maturity when the right to receive interest accrued to the assessee. In Laxmipat Singhania v CIT, (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), relied upon on behalf of the revenue it was held that where the amount had escaped assessment on accrual basis it could not be taxed in another year on the basis of receipt. No such situation has arisen in the instant case inasmuch as accrual of interest is only upon maturity and there is no question of any income escaping assessment on accr…

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…s provided, same income cannot be taxed twice. In this preposition kindly refer the decision of this Honble Bench in the case of Sh. AvdeshDangayach V/s ACIT Cir.6 in ITA No. 464/Jp/2016 dt. 23.02.2017 vide page 10. Also Kindly refer LaxmipatSinghania v/s CIT 72 ITR 291(SC), CIT v/s M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v/s ITO 73 TTJ 859(Jd). Gem Palace v/s CIT 168 ITR 543(Raj.)., RamanlalMadanLal v/s CIT 116 ITR 657(Cal.), Jain Brothers v/s UOI 77 ITR 107(SC), Further the Honble ITAT in the group case of M/s Gowadia Jewellers in ITA No. 776/Ju/05 at page 8-para 15 dt.30.09.2008 deleted certain addit…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 539/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Rukmani Jewellers Private DCIT, Limited, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Vs. Circle-04, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECR 6786 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.), Shri S. L. Jain (Adv.)…

Giriraj Prasad Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Tonk, Tonk

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 200/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 200 & 201/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 cuke Giriraj Prasad Goyal ITO, Vs. 1 Goyal Bhawan, Housing Board Tonk Coloni Bus Stand, Tonk LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGFPG 9679 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh…

Kadavanthara Builders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward -4(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

…1 (SC) 12. CIT v. Dairnia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd [2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del.) 13. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 336 ITR 287 (Born.) Classification of interest income as income from other source Income cannot be doubly taxed Laxmipat Singhania v. (,'IT [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC) Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC) CIT v Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd [2014] 373 ITR 252 (AP) ITA Nos.2484 & 2485/CHNY/2019 Page 16 of 26 Interest income should constitute business income CIT v Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd [2018] 403 ITR 453 (Kar) (FB) Swire Holdings (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2006] 6 SOT 621 (Bang- Tr…

Kadavanthara Builders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward -4(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

…1 (SC) 12. CIT v. Dairnia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd [2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del.) 13. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 336 ITR 287 (Born.) Classification of interest income as income from other source Income cannot be doubly taxed Laxmipat Singhania v. (,'IT [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC) Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC) CIT v Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd [2014] 373 ITR 252 (AP) ITA Nos.2484 & 2485/CHNY/2019 Page 16 of 26 Interest income should constitute business income CIT v Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd [2018] 403 ITR 453 (Kar) (FB) Swire Holdings (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2006] 6 SOT 621 (Bang- Tr…

Sage International Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 90

…ation is involved, the Legislature itself has, in express words, sanctioned it It is not open to anyone thereafter to invoke the general principles that the subject cannot be taxed twice over. " Reliance is also placed on - • Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [(1969) 72 ITR 291] (sq] - "It is a fundamental rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice" 20 | P a g e • H.H. Prince Azam Jha Bahadur v. Expenditure tax Officer [[1972] 83 ITR 92 (SC)] - "It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted that they cannot be so interpreted a…

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…disallowance remuneration in the hands of the firm, he should not have taxed that part of income in the hands of the partners. It is fundamental rule of taxation that unless provided, same income cannot be taxed twice, kindly refer Laxmipat Singhania Vis CIT 72 ITR 291 (SC), CIT w/s MP. Jaya Ram 100 Taxman 544 (Kar). Gyan Chand Jain Vis ITO 73 TTJ 889 (JD) Gem Palace Vis CIT 168 ITR 543 (Raj.) Ramanlal Madan Lal V/s CIT 116 ITR 657 (Cal), Jain Brothers Vis UOI 77 ITR 107 (SC), Futher, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur in the case of M/s Gowadła Jewellers in ITA No.776/Jw/05 at page-8 para 15 dated 30/09/2008 deleted cer…

Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafana vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

…s. 145; the assessee referring to s.145 and abundant case-law toward the law in the matter, viz. Rakesh Shantilal Mardia v. Dy. CIT [2012] 210 Taxman 565 (SC) Kedarnath jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 (SC) Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC) Keshav Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1953] 23 ITR 230, 239 (SC) J&K industries Ltd. [2007] 13 Scale 204 (SC) CIT v. Kerala Financial Corporation Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 246 (Ker.) 7 | P a g e ITA Nos. 175 &176/JAB/2016 (A.Yrs. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafna v. Addl. CIT P. Mariappa Gounder v. CIT [1984] 147 ITR 676 (Mad.) 7.2 Income, which…

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…led before the Ld. Assessing Officer, despite no benefit of income, for which tax has already been paid, was given by the lower authorities. 23. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LaxmipatSinghnia Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), to highlight that same income cannot be taxed twice, once on accrual basis and subsequently on the basis of the receipt. 24. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that assessee has failed to establish the fact that tax was paid on the amount of ₹41,32,000/-in assessment year 1996-97. He also submitted that otherwise also said receipt is ta…

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

…led before the Ld. Assessing Officer, despite no benefit of income, for which tax has already been paid, was given by the lower authorities. 23. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LaxmipatSinghnia Vs CIT (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), to highlight that same income cannot be taxed twice, once on accrual basis and subsequently on the basis of the receipt. 24. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that assessee has failed to establish the fact that tax was paid on the amount of ₹41,32,000/-in assessment year 1996-97. He also submitted that otherwise also said receipt is ta…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…taxing of same amount which is not permissible in law and the reliance in this respect is placed on the following judicial precedents: S N Particulars LBP Page Para No Page No. Nos 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 363-371 Held 363 & 364 Singhania vs CIT, 72 ITR 291 SC Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case 2. 372-375 3 373 & of M/s. Sahney Kirkwood Private 374 Limited v. ACIT (ITA No: 1517/2007) ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 21 of 22 Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in case of 3. 376-387 15 387 CIT v. Gujarat Co-op Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (228 Taxman 267) Hon'ble Mumbai T…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…taxing of same amount which is not permissible in law and the reliance in this respect is placed on the following judicial precedents: S N Particulars LBP Page Para No Page No. Nos 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 363-371 Held 363 & 364 Singhania vs CIT, 72 ITR 291 SC Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case 2. 372-375 3 373 & of M/s. Sahney Kirkwood Private 374 Limited v. ACIT (ITA No: 1517/2007) ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 21 of 22 Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in case of 3. 376-387 15 387 CIT v. Gujarat Co-op Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (228 Taxman 267) Hon'ble Mumbai T…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…of trading liability has been accepted by him (PB 76-84). Thus, taxing the same amount again in AY 2013-14 would amount to double taxation which is not tenable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (SC) (1969) 72 ITR 291 held that “It is a fundamental rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice.” Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai Bench in case of Popular Foundations (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 209 DTR 18. The head note of the decision reads as under:- Income—Cash credit—Genuineness…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…of trading liability has been accepted by him (PB 76-84). Thus, taxing the same amount again in AY 2013-14 would amount to double taxation which is not tenable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (SC) (1969) 72 ITR 291 held that “It is a fundamental rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice.” Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai Bench in case of Popular Foundations (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 209 DTR 18. The head note of the decision reads as under:- Income—Cash credit—Genuineness…

Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2019/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5597/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5598/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 2019/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit/Dcit, Ground Floor, The Crescent, Plot Circle-16(2), No. 1 To 7, Lsc Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4861G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…f the Act operate simultaneously in the instant case and are not contradictory to each other is incorrect is devoid of merit. 12. Reliance is being placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. 72 ITR 291 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jain Brothers and Others Vs. Union of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax, Jaipur…

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5598/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5597/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5598/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 2019/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit/Dcit, Ground Floor, The Crescent, Plot Circle-16(2), No. 1 To 7, Lsc Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4861G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…f the Act operate simultaneously in the instant case and are not contradictory to each other is incorrect is devoid of merit. 12. Reliance is being placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. 72 ITR 291 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jain Brothers and Others Vs. Union of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax, Jaipur…

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5597/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5597/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5598/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 2019/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit/Dcit, Ground Floor, The Crescent, Plot Circle-16(2), No. 1 To 7, Lsc Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4861G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 40Section 92C

…f the Act operate simultaneously in the instant case and are not contradictory to each other is incorrect is devoid of merit. 12. Reliance is being placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmipat Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. 72 ITR 291 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jain Brothers and Others Vs. Union of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and Mahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax, Jaipur…

Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT

What is Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT

Mudra Industries, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)(1), Bangalore

Commissioner of Income Ta, Kolkata - II vs. M/S. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. L

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corp. Ltd

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

Giriraj Prasad Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Tonk, Tonk

Kadavanthara Builders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward -4(2), Chennai

Kadavanthara Builders Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward -4(2), Chennai

Sage International Inc., Usa vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

Hajarimal Mishrimal Bafana vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi