42 ITR 427 (SC) CIT v. DharamdasHargovandas

118 ITR 50Supreme Court of India1979#7630 most cited

What is 42 ITR 427 (SC) CIT v. DharamdasHargovandas authority for?

Sums already disclosed as income, such as cash sales deposited in a bank, cannot be taxed again under Section 68 or 69A, as this would amount to impermissible double taxation.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dharamdas Hargovandas · 42 ITR 427 · Section 68 · Section 69A · double taxation · cash sales · undisclosed income · unexplained cash credit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 145(3)double taxationsection 145section 115bsection 115bbesection 133(6)undisclosed incomeunexplained cash creditsection 68income from other sourcessection 115assistant commissioner

Judgments citing 42 ITR 427 (SC) CIT v. DharamdasHargovandas

Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5900/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Plot No.50, Flat No.A-201, Delhi. Parshav Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aacck6905F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…the bank cannot be taxed as income under section 68/69A of the Act as that would tantamount to double taxation. Double taxation is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. LaxmiPat Singhania vs. CIT ii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. iii) CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Guj) in Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2019 iv) CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House (Del) in ITA 613/2010 6 5.4 Section 68/69A of the Act does not apply to a sum already disclosed as income as held by the judgment of Hon’ble Hon’ble Delhi High Court in t…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, CC-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…director remuneration in the hands of the appellant, would lead to double taxation, which is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed upon following judgments: i) 42 ITR 427 (SC) CIT vs. DharamdasHargovandas ii) 72 ITR 291 (SC) LaxmipatSinghaniavs.CIT iii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of U.P. vs Raja Buland Sugar Co.Ltd iv) 404 ITR 738 (SC) Mahaveer Kumar Jain v. CIT v) 258 ITR 717 (Del) ITO v. Vinod Kumar Soni ……… 36. It is further submitted that it is settled law that no addition/disallowance can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC)…

Lsl Tools (P) Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…director remuneration in the hands of the appellant, would lead to double taxation, which is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed upon following judgments: i) 42 ITR 427 (SC) CIT vs. DharamdasHargovandas ii) 72 ITR 291 (SC) LaxmipatSinghaniavs.CIT iii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of U.P. vs Raja Buland Sugar Co.Ltd iv) 404 ITR 738 (SC) Mahaveer Kumar Jain v. CIT v) 258 ITR 717 (Del) ITO v. Vinod Kumar Soni ……… 36. It is further submitted that it is settled law that no addition/disallowance can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC)…

Dilip Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 666/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, Ld. CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…1 Shri Dilip Maheshwari, Jaipur. आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 666/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Dilip Maheshwari Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Partanion Ka Mandir, Income-tax, Central Circle-3, Partanion Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADDPM 3904D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@…

Khoobsoorat Fabrics Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 14(3), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

…he bank cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act as that tantamount to double taxation. It is submitted that double taxation is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 72 ITR 291 (SC) CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania vs. CIT ii) 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. iii) 344 ITR 294 (MP) CIT v. Jaora Flour and Foods (P) Ltd. (pages 6-87 of JPB) 10 iv) ITA No. 995/Ahd./2014 dated 6.1.2020 Shree Sanad Textiles Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT (extract pages 170-171 of Paper Book) v) ITA 8761/D/2019 dated 10.7.2020 A.K. Lumbers Ltd. vs. ACIT (extract page 171-1…

M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer - 1, Raigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 70/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd. C/O Kanha Electricals & Electronics, Nanhu Nagar, Vijay Nagar, P.O. Kirodimalnagar, Raigargh (C.G.) Pan : Aaocs8271J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ner of Income Tax Vs. Singhania Buildcon (P) Ltd., ITA No.133/RPR/2016 dated 23.09.2021. Also, the Ld. AR had pressed into service the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 50 (SC). It was, thus, the claim of the Ld. AR that now when the assessee company had only facilitated routing the money from the aforementioned share subscriber companies, viz., (i) M/s. Eagle Commotrade Pvt. Ltd.; and (ii) M/s. Krishnakali Distributors Pvt. Ltd. to the real beneficiary, i.e. M/s. Rashi Steel and Power Ltd, and the same had been ass…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 425/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 424/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 423/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 422/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 421/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 420/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 418/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 417/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…tion as made and sustained results in double taxation. The same alleged addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of the Appellant's husband. Double taxation and double addition of the same alleged amount is not permissible under the Act. Refer 118 ITR 50 (SC) State of UP & Others Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 262 ITR 500(Raj.) CIT Vs. Taj Oil Traders. 5. That the said addition as made by the Ld. AO on protective basis and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises and bald, hostile third party material & statements which are self evidently incorrect and stan…

42 ITR 427 (SC) CIT v. DharamdasHargovandas (118 ITR 50) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax