In Rakesh Kumar Agarwal v. The Joint Commissioner Of, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Income Tax Appeal No. 645 of 2002
Rakesh Kumar Agarwal ..Appellant
vs.
1. The Joint Commissioner of
Income Tax and another ..Respondent
Ms.A.Vissonji with Mr.S.J.Mehta for appellant.
Mr.N.A.Kazi for respondent.
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 4th September,2008
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
4th September,2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. After hearing the parties for some time, both the
learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee and
respondent/revenue categorically consent to setting aside
the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
dated 25th July, 2000 pertaining to the appeal filed by
the assessee as well as revenue in view of the fact that
the assessee has been assessed and income tax has already
been paid in Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99 for the
amount which has been assessed during the assessment year
1996-97.
-2-
3. Both the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
and respondent consent that the appellant/assessee can
satisfy the Assessing Officer that the assessee has
already been assessed and tax has been paid during the
assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99 for the amount which
has been assessed for the Assessment Year 1996-97. To put
in other words, the assessee has been assessed twice and
that there has been a double taxation. It is made clear
that the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee to
deduct the said amount if the assessee has already been
assessed during the aforesaid Aessement year 1997-98 and
1998-99. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.