9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the principle of double taxation. 2. Application of the principle of diversion of profits. 3. Legality of deleting additions from the income of the assessee-firm. Interpretation of the principle of double taxation: The High Court considered the issue of double taxation in the context of the Tribunal's decision to delete certain additions from the income of the assessee-firm. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Jain Brothers v. Union of India, emphasizing that the assessment of different persons in respect of the same income does not absolve one from liability to be taxed. The court clarified that if income belongs to a particular assessee, that assessee is liable to be taxed on that income, regardless of whether others have already been assessed for the same income. The court highlighted that each person is individually responsible for their own tax liability, and one cannot escape their tax burden by diverting profits to others. Application of the principle of diversion of profits: The case involved a registered firm engaged in the business of dealing with agricultural commodities and adat. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the income of the assessee-firm, alleging diversion of profits to certain individuals. The Tribunal found that while the transactions indeed involved diversion of profits, it held that the firm could not be taxed twice on the same income if the individuals to whom the profits were diverted had already been assessed and taxed on that income. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions based on the principle that income cannot be taxed twice. However, the High Court disagreed with this approach, emphasizing that the income belonged to the assessee-firm and, therefore, the firm was liable to pay tax on that income, irrespective of the tax assessments of the other individuals involved. Legality of deleting additions from the income of the assessee-firm: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the deletion of the additions from the income of the assessee-firm. The court held that the income in question belonged to the firm, and the firm could not escape its tax liability by diverting profits to other individuals. Rejecting the assessee's contention, the court highlighted the potential consequences of allowing individuals to evade their tax burden by manipulating the diversion of profits. Consequently, the court answered the question referred to it in the negative, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.
|
