Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT

72 ITR 291Supreme Court of India1969#1408 most cited

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.

81

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

Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT · 72 ITR 291 · double taxation · income taxed twice · year of taxability · income accrual · Income-tax Officer power · Section 68 · Section 69A · fundamental taxation rule

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 68Section 132Section 145(3)Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 23aretention moneysection 145(1)section 211section 115baasection 145(2)project completion methodsection 28(iv)section 43csection 35dpercentage completion methodicds

Judgments citing Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT

DCIT, Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1110/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit Vs Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Cirlce-11(1) Building No. 1, Okhla Phase-Iii, New Delhi Near Modi Mill, New Delhi Pan-Aabch3162L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012-13] DCIT vs Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Cirlce-11(1) Building No. 1, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi Near Modi Mill, New Delhi PAN-AABCH3162L APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O No. 21/Del/2021 [In ITA No. 1110/Del/2018] [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Building No. 1, Okhla Phase-III, Cirlce-11(2) Near Modi Mill, New Delhi New Delhi PAN-AABCH3162L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. Navin Chand Suchanti

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITAT/1/2018HC Calcutta24 Nov 2021

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…

DCIT Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Shivaami Clound Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2599/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 143(2)

…tion taxed in the year under consideration, then it will be amount to double taxation of same income as the assessee had already offered the advance subscription in Assessment Year 2016-17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmipat Singhania V. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 291 (SC)laid down the principal that "It is a fundamental rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed Mice". Thus, the action of Ld. AO taxing the income twice is contrary to principal laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the revenue from subscription period fall into the previous year ending…

DCIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai vs. Sopariwala Export Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6327/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Sopariwala Exports Private Ltd., 21St Floor, Nirmal Room No. 656, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Building, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.R
Section 133DSection 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…the Assessee. The Supreme Court in ITO v BachuLalKapoor Kewal Ram [1966] 60ITR 74(SC) 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. C1T (1969) 72 ITR 291(SC), where it has said that it is fundamental rule of the law of taxation that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. In C1T v Prabha Debi Bagaria (1991) 192 ITR 416 (Cal) (EC) it was held as under: "6. In this particular case, the ITO had assessed the trust in respect of income of half portion of the property in respec…

DCIT-CC-8(1), Mumbai vs. Soex India Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Soex India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 656, Vs. 21St Floor, Nirmal Building, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh, A.R
Section 133DSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…Assessee. The Supreme Court in ITO v Bachu Lal Kapoor Kewal Ram [1966] 60 ITR 74 (SC) 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(SC), where it has said that it is fundamental rule of the law of taxation that unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. In CIT v Prabha Debi Bagaria [1991] 192 ITR 416 (Cal)(HC) it was held as under: "6. In this particular case, the ITO had assessed the trust in respect of the Income of half portion of the property in re…

Jv of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Eliop, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 711/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 711/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jv Of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Eliop, Ward-4(2), B-141, Road No. 9D, Vki Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaaaj 5853 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 01/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Matter, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- Made By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On Contract Receipts Of Rs.14,87,10,667/- Arbitrarily. 1.1 That, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Upholding Addition By Completely Ignoring The Submission Made By Assessee & Evidences Adduced. The Addition Confirmed Are Solely Based On Conjectures & Surmises. Appellant Thus Prays That Such Addition Being Most Arbitrary, Unjust, Untenable & Bad In Law, Deserve To Be Deleted. 1.2. That, Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- By Disregarding The Submission Of Assessee That Entire

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 133(6)

…d stood accepted u/s 143(1). Such an act of the ld. AO is taxation of an income twice. It is a settled proposition of law that an income cannot be taxed twice unless otherwise expressly provided. Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT (72 ITR 291) held that "Taxing Statute should not be interpreted in such a manner that its effect will be to cast a burden twice over the payment of tax 11 ITA 711/JP/2019_ JV of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd & ELIOP Vs ITO on the taxpayer unless the language of the statute is so compellingly certain that the court has no other alternative than to accept it." H…

Addl CIT -- 10(1), Mumbai vs. Agc Network Ltd ( Formerly Known As Avaya Global Connect Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

…by the assessee on completion of project. Thus, he submitted, addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– Laxmipat Singhania v/s CIT, [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC); i) ii) CIT v/s P. Mariappa Gounder, [1984]147 ITR 676 (Mad.); & iii) CIT v/s Kerala Financial Corporation, [1985] 155 ITR 246 (Ker.) 41. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have also carefully applied our mind to the decisions 43 AGC Network Ltd. (Formerly known as Avaya Global Connect Ltd.) relied…

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3956/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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3955/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 3954/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

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

…ffered 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 in the order of the Assessing Officer making add…

Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5744/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2001-02 Nokia India P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle 13(1), C/O Tec Level 18, New Delhi. Dlf Cyber City, Phase-Iii Building No.5, Tower A, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacn2170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vikas Srivastava , Advocate Shri Sumit Mangal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 .01.2019 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Srivastava , AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 143Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…s.80,03,258/- which also includes the aforesaid FOC handsets of Rs.59,38,347/-, and the double addition cannot be made by the AO in view of the decisions in CIT Vs, SAK Industries (P.) Ltd. (1994) 49 TTJ (Del) 457 (Delhi HC); Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC). 15. He further submitted that without prejudice to the above, even if the handsets damaged in transit are treated as stock owned by the appellant, the same should be allowed to be written off and reduced from total income of the appellant in view of the provisions under Section 145-A of the Act. Therefore, these handsets should be valued at…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Crayons Advertising Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue and cross objection filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4872/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2009-10 Acit, Circle – 6(2) Vs. Crayons Advertising Ltd. Room No.390 Nsic Complex, Maa Anandmaye Marg C.R. Building Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi Phase Iii New Delhi 110 020 Pan: Aaacc1063C Cross Objection No.487/Del/15 (In Ita No. 4872/Del/2015) Ay: 2009-10 Crayons Advertising Ltd. Acit, Circle – 6(2) New Delhi 110 020 Room No.390 Vs. C.R.Building New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…echanically, arbitrarily in 2.3 disregard of the facts and position of the law and therefore untenable. In fact, it is a case of double taxation which is not permissible, as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania.vs. CIT reported in 72 ITR 291 and thus, addition made is invalid. That various adverse findings recorded in the order of 2.4 assessment are contrary to facts and law and, have been recorded ITA No. 4872/Del/2015 and C.O.487/Del/15 A.Y.:2009-10 Crayons Advertising Ltd. without granting any opportunity much less valid and proper opportunity and therefore, vitiated, untenable an…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ITA No.4751/Mum/2016 & 4752/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2006-07 & 2007-08) DCIT (IT) – 4(2)(1), Vs. Shri Dipendu Bapalal Shah Scindia House C/o. Sampat & Mehta Ballard Pier, Chartered Accountants N.M.Road, B-501/502, 11 Sarvoday Mumbai – 400 038 W.E. Highway, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. BNBPS0099E Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal Assessee by Shri Rohan Shah, Shri Hardik Choksi, Shri Vijay Riyani & Ms. Divya Jeswant Date of Hearing 15/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement 19/06/201…

Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. Commnr. of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-004166-004166 - 2006Supreme Court19 Apr 2018

Bench: Proceeding Further, It Is Pertinent To Set Out The Facts In A Summarized Way To Appreciate Properly The Issue Involved In This Instant Appeal:- 1 Digitally Signed By Asha Sundriyal Date: 2018.04.19 17:26:37 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

Section 256(1)Section 80Section 80T

…r, there would appear to be, on the same income, two types of income-taxes cannot be applied. 11) In the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to refer the decision of this Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (1969) 72 ITR 291 at 294 wherein this Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice". 12) Further, in a decision of this Court in Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC), it has been held as under:- “6 It is not disputed…