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 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.

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 1961 Section 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 68 Section 132 Section 145(3)Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 23a retention money section 145(1)section 211 section 115baa section 145(2)project completion method section 28(iv)section 43c section 35d percentage completion method icds

Judgments citing Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT

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)

…n 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 because the KEC has already returned the same income in the same financial year the income can be taxed in the hand of the assessee. 2. Because the Learned AO has failed to appreciate the CBDT's Instructi…

M/S. Dynasty Housing & Land Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3106/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…dia Ltd. to M/s Passion Chits Company Private Limited and again as undisclosed income received from M/s Passion Chits Company Private Limited. This addition is in disregard of the judgment of Apex court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania vs. CIT reported in 72 ITR 291 and therefore, unsustainable. 6 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the basic fact that the learned ITO solely based his order on statement made by Sh. D.N. Taneja on 07.01.2009 wherein he surrendered Rs. 6.23 crores, wherein he specifically surrendered Rs. 15,00, 000/- on behalf of appellant company, ignoring a…

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)

…as "Receivable" that in mercantile system of accounts 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 maintai…

M/S. Neptune Promoters Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 341/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…to appreciate the basic fact that there could be no double and again as undisclosed income received from MIs Passion Chits Company Private Ltd. This addition is in disregard of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania vs CIT reported in 72 ITR 291 and therefore, unsustainable. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), solely based his order on statement made by Sh. D.N. Taneja on 07.01.2009, wherein he specifically surrendered Rs. 45,00,000/- on behalf of appellant company, ignoring and overlooking the basic fact that Sh. D.N.Taneja was never a Director in the appellant…

Shriram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation, New Delhi vs. Jdit (Exemptions), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 920/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Shriram Scientific & Vs. Jdit (Exemptions), Range- Industrial Research Ii, New Delhi Foundation, Diamond Press Building, 8E , Rani Jhansi Road, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Pan : Aaats0867K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)

…debt in the nature of income at the time of receiving such debt. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. Vs. UOI, 199 ITR 43 and Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Lakshmipat Singhania Vs. CIT 71 ITR 291. Considering the above said decisions and principal of accounting, the Assessing Officer observed that the practice of claiming repayment of loan as application, in addition to the claim of investment in fixed assets made out of the said loan, amounted to double deduction which was neither intended nor expressed by the 6 AY: 2008-09 legislature. H…

Ssipl Luxury Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands allowed

ITA 5368/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Ssipl Luxury Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2) (Sumedha Luxury Fashion Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi E-51, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S SSIPL LUXURY FASHION PVT. LTD. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(2) (SUMEDHA LUXURY FASHION PVT. LTD.) NEW DELHI E-51, MANSAROVER PARK, SHAHDARA, DELHI – 110 032 (PAN: AAJCS1272J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, A.R. Revenue by : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 27-09-2016 Date of order : 29-09-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 9.7.2012 of the Ld. CIT(A)-XII, N…

I.T.O WD - 55(4), Kolkata. vs. Sri Suvaprasanna Bhattacharjee., Kolkata

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

ITA 178/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri SallongYaden, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Tarun Kumar Banerjee, FCA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…id disclosed income cannot be asked to pay tax on the same again and the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income again in assessment year 2009-10. Reliance is placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of LaxmipatSinghaniaVs CIT U.P. [1969] 72 ITR 291 wherein it was held that “It is a fundamental rule of the law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Again, it is not open to the Income Tax Officer, if another year on the basis of receipt.” 11. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is merit in the submissions of the asses…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Sheela D. Shah, Mumbai

ITA 5254/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.5254/Mum/2011 : िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-25(2), Sheela D. Shah, Bandra (E), Mumbai. B-106, Nirmal Sagar, Devidas Lane, Vs. Off. S.V. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 103 Pan : Akmps 8855 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R.K. Sahu – Dr Assessee By: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh - Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/07/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद", राजे" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh - CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Sahu – DR

Section 143Section 254(1)

…ted the profit shown by DS on substantive basis, that F&O income of Rs. 1.63 Crores had been taxed in the hands of DS, that taxing the same once again in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation.He relied upon the cases of Laxamipat Singhania(72 ITR 291) and Smt.J P Sidhwa(131 ITR 840). 5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had entered into MoUs with her husband in the earlier year,that the MoU was revised in the year under consideration and the profit sharing ratio was also altered, that she had entered into F&O transactions during t…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sector Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.E.Dastur, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT &

Section 199

…Gopala Pillai v. Agricultural ITO [1970] 75 ITR 120 (Mad); (2) CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam's Family (Remainder Wealth) Trust [1977] 108 ITR 555 (SC); (3) CIT v. K. Shyamaraju (Trustees) [1991] 189 ITR 392 (Kar); and (4) Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC). 6 ITA Nos.505(B)/13, 533-535(B)/14, 633- 638(B)/13, 697(B)/15 & 836-838(Bang)2013 8. The Assessing Officer without discussing the facts of those cases and the ratio laid down in those decisions and as to how the facts of the assessees case are different from those cases, held that the cases cited are not applicable to the facts of the asse…

M/S Rainbow International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3107/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Planners Ltd. to MIs Passion Chits Company Private Ltd. and again as undisclosed income received from MIs Passion Chits Company Private Ltd. This addition is in disregard of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania vs CIT reported in 72 ITR 291 and therefore, unsustainable. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has ignored the basic fact that the learned ITO solely based his order on statement made by Sh. D.N. Taneja on 07.01.2009 wherein he surrendered Rs. 6.23 crores, wherein he specifically surrendered Rs. 15,00,000/- on behalf of appellant company, ignoring…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Sasi Educational Institutes

Appeal is dismissed as above

ITTA/125/2010HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

For Appellant: - The Commissioner Of Income Tax And AnotherFor Respondent: - M/S Eldeco Construction Pvt. Ltd

Section 260ASection 80Section 80I

…072/- made by the A.O. on account of License fee ignoring the legal aspect that the assessee as well as its sister concerns are maintaining the account on mercantile basis and also considering the ratio of decisions Laxmipat Singhania Vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC), CIT Vs. K.R.M.T. Thiangaraia Chetty & Co. (1953) 24 ITR 525 (SC), Morvl Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 833 (SC), CIT Vs. Ashok Bhai Chiman Bhai (1965) 56 ITR 42 (SC) this income should have been assessed on accrual basis ?" Insofar as the question no.1 is concerned, it has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the depart…

Sun TAN Tarading Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12

ITA 5087/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negisun Tan Trading Company Limited, Mumbai, C/O. Giiners & Pressers Ltd., Oriental House, 5Th Floor, 7, Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaccs 2091L ... Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 1(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D.Mistry/Madhur Agarwal/For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…onsideration i.e. assessment year 2011-12 would amount to double taxation of the same amount which is not permissible in law. In support of this proposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmipat Singhania (1969) 72 ITR 291, wherein it has been held that it is a fundamental rule of the laws of taxation that income cannot be taxed twice, unless otherwise expressly provided in the statute. 4.3.1 Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported and relied the orders of the authorities below in bringing the amount of Rs.62,50,00,000/- to tax in assessm…

ACIT vs. Icici Emerging Sector Fund

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 475/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)

Section 61Section 63

…7 & 179/B/12, & 475/B/13 Page 8 of 33 (1) Gopala Pillai A.K. Vs. ITO 75 ITR 120 (Mad); (2) CWT Vs. Trustees of HEH Nizam’s Family (remainder Wealth) Trust 107 ITR 555 (SC); (3) CIT Vs. Shamaraju Trustees 56 Taxman 175 (Karn.); (4) Lakshmipat Singhania Vs. CIT 72 ITR 291 (SC). 7. The AO without discussing the facts of those cases and the ratio laid down in those decisions and as to how the facts of the Assessee’s case are different from those cases, held that the cases cited are not applicable to the facts of the Assessee’s case. 8. The AO also observed as follows:- “It is not denied that the business was carri…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S India Advantage Fund I, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 179/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)

Section 61Section 63

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sector Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 177/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)

Section 61Section 63

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sectors Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 348/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)

Section 61Section 63

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sectors Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2011[200809]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)

Section 61Section 63

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)

…ing 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 provision for doubtful debts out of which `50 Crores was disallowed and,…

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)

…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 provision for doubtful debts out of which `50 Crores was disallowed and,…

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)

…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 provision for doubtful debts out of which `50 Crores was disallowed and,…