MOHD. ILYAS CHOWDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5303/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 April 2017AY 2009-107 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed twice. It remitted the matter to the AO to verify if salary, commission, and interest income already declared in the return of income were part of the deposits.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 22 lacs as undisclosed income due to unexplained deposits in the assessee's savings bank account. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 17,18,391/- after allowing some relief.

What were the issues?

Whether deposits in a bank account, which represent income already declared and taxed, can be added again as undisclosed income. The issue of double taxation of the same income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep S. Shetty
For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →