Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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