Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief

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

Similar News