“double taxation”

Puneet Khanna, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shri Puneet Khanna Vs. Income Tax Officer 8/51, Ramesh Nagar Ward-3(1) New Delhi Gurgaon Pan: Aajpk7067L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. R. R. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

claimed refund of Rs. 96,480/-. The declared income included Dividend income from outside India. The Assessee claimed double taxation relief u/s 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) amounting to Rs. 65,986/- in respect to foreign income. The Assesseehad filed Form 67 intimating claim ... double taxation relief u/s 90 of the Acton 14/01/2022 instead of the due date of filing was 15/02/2021. The CPC vide intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 24/12/2021 disallowed the claim of double taxation relief, not allowed credit of TDC and TCS of Rs.1

Allied Concepts India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2407/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Allied Concepts India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, C/O Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Vs. Ward 2(1), F-26,/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aaica9865C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

account of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without discarding audited books of the appellant u/s 145 by making double taxation of gross receipt declared in profit and loss account; 2. The Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Satish Kumar, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2447/Del/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Room No.217, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Revenue By सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: उद्घोषणाकीतारीख /Pronouncement On Satish Kumar X/1585, Rajgarh Colony, New Delhi. Pan No.Aнерк4309В Shri Pramod Jain, Ca & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr 19.08.2025 26.09.2025 आदेश /Order Per C.N. Prasad, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.03.2024 For The Ay 2017-18 In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization Period. 2. Ld. Dr Made The Following Submissions: (I) The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Trading Of Ghee & Oil Under The Proprietorship M/S Phool Chand Hari Kishan. He Filed His Return Of Income On 26.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,58,120/- For The

regular books of accounts, which were audited, and income- tax has been duly paid on the profits thereof. Hence, the addition leads to double taxation of the same income. • At the time of assessment proceedings, Ld.AO has not doubted the genuineness of the sales, the purchases, Ld. AO himself accepted ... Since the cash deposits are explained, accounted for, audited and already taxed, the addition u/s 68 of the Act is unjustified and amounts to double taxation, which is impressible in law. 5. It is to be noted thatLd.CIT(A) has delete the addition

DCIT Central Circle-27, New Delhi vs. Nrp Packers Private Limited, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

above, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue as the issue raised therein would only lead to anomalous result, double taxation and unjust enrichment of the revenue as the credits in the two bank accounts have already been subjected to tax on two occasions

Priyanka, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 50(3), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Priyanka Vs. Ito, Ward 50(3), Block 5/25, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Avnpp5108Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Nfac, Delhi Dated 26.07.2025 On The Solitary Ground Relating To Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 30,65,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Act. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.10.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 3,23,910/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served. The Reasons For Selection Of The Case For Scrutiny Were, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & High Value Receipt Of Cash Shown From Third Parties In Response Data”. The Assessee Was Found To Have Deposited Cash Of Rs. 30,65,000/- During The Demonetization Period In Fy 2016-17 In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Punjab National Bank. The Assessee Claimed That The Said Cash Was Received By Her

ITRs u/s. 139(1) of the Act, hence, taxing the said cash receipts again in the hands of the asssee would lead to double taxation. 3.2 In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, I am of the considered view that that the sources of the cash deposits of assessee

Dairy India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle - 7(1), Delhi

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

that provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in respect of income from a source which has already been taxed which would amount to double taxation.” 7. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in remand proceedings, the assessee has submitted all the details relating

Vijay Kumar Gupta, Meerut vs. Income Tax Officer, Meerut

In the result, the instant assesseee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2013-14

which the AO has accepted and no sales have been admitted as revenue receipts so by treating sundry debtors as taxable income will be double taxation. ii) The AO has erred in treating the amount of Rs. 9,40,000/- as appellants’ income and added to his total income

Ravish Vohra, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

kindly be noted that the declared business income u/s 44AD already includes the entire cash sales. Addition of alleged fictitious cash sales amounts to double taxation which is not envisaged under the law. 2.1 However, the CIT(A) was not satisfied and allowed part relief to the assessee with ... which assessee has shown profit u/s 44AD and paid tax. Making addition of cash deposited which is out of cash sales amounts to double taxation. Hence, the order passed by the CIT (A) confirming addition of Rs.17,13,484/- u/s 69A is totally wrong, bad in law and needs