Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Tax Ruling: Income Tax Cannot be Imposed Twice on Same Income: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has affirmed the principle that income tax cannot be imposed twice on the same income. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Hon’ble Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia, addresses the issue of double taxation and its applicability when undisclosed income is invested as share capital in multiple companies.

The case involved the flagship company, Surya Food & Agro Ltd., which had admitted to unaccounted income and disclosed it before the Settlement Commission. This undisclosed income was subsequently invested as share capital in respondent companies, including Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited and Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.

The crux of the matter was whether this undisclosed income could be taxed again in the hands of the respondent companies. The court’s judgment relied on legal principles and several judicial precedents supporting the prohibition of double taxation.

The court observed, “It is a fundamental principle of taxation that income cannot be taxed twice unless expressly provided. Taxing the same income again, once it has been disclosed and taxed in the hands of one entity, would be contrary to this principle.”

The judgment cited various cases, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Laxmipat Singhania vs Commissioner of Income Tax, which emphasized that income cannot be taxed twice on the basis of accrual and receipt.

Furthermore, the court referred to the settlement proceedings before the Settlement Commission, where the flagship company explicitly declared that the undisclosed income had been applied as share capital in the respondent companies. The settlement order, which was accepted by both parties and not challenged, had already subjected this income to tax.

The judgment concluded that since the undisclosed income had already been taxed in the hands of the flagship company, it could not be subjected to taxation again when applied as share capital in the respondent companies. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the respondent/assessee companies, affirming that the principle of non-double taxation prevails.

Date of Decision: September 06, 2023

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL-1 vs  SURYA AGROTECH INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

Latest Legal News