Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

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