Which cases are most cited on Section 26?

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (60 ITR 74) — 60 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 26?

BharatTax indexes 51 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 26 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 26 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 26 of the Income Tax Act?

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (60 ITR 74) is the decision most relied on for Section 26, cited in 60 judgments. 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.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.24

Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 24 (Property owned by co-owners) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 24 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 26 is ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (60 ITR 74), cited in 60 of the 51 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 26

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor

60 ITR 74 · 1966 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

Judgments on Section 26

Shri Pramod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 30(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2458/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 24Section 40

DCIT, Chennai vs. Ganapathy Media P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both, the appeal of the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1286/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & C.O. No.158/Nds/2013 (In I.T.A. No.1286/Mds/2013) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Bagmar. RFor Respondent: Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

Sakkubai D/O. Parimalabai vs. State of Karnatka

WP/60278/2011HC Karnataka27 Apr 2015

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),RAM MOHAN REDDY

Commnr. Sales Tax, U.P vs. M/S Nikhil Khandsari Udyog

The appeals are allowed

SLP(C) No.-014994-014994 - 2000Supreme Court17 Dec 2014

Bench: SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA MADAN B. LOKUR

Section 26Section 32(1)Section 53Section 62(1)

(O&M) Sudhir Nagpal and Ors vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward II((3) Abohar

ITA/463/2009HC Punjab & Haryana26 Jul 2012

Section 147Section 148Section 167B(2)Section 260A

Raju Premji vs. Customs Ner Shillong Unit

Appeals are allowed

Crl.A. No.-001647-001647 - 2007Supreme Court06 May 2009

Bench: Placing On Record The Factual Matrix Of The Matter, We May Notice That Whereas Accused Nos. 1 & 2 Have Been Convicted For Possession Of 380 Gms. Of Heroin, Appellants Herein Were Convicted Under Section 25 Of The Act For Abetment Thereof As They Purported To Have Associated Themselves With Finding Prospective Buyers In Disposing Of The Contraband. 2

Section 25Section 29Section 67