“double taxation”

MiscellaneousGeneralGeneral4,703 judgments

The decision most relied on for double taxation is DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV (382 ITR 114), cited in 325 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on double taxation

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV

382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court

325

citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft

310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court

259

citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT

239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court

243

citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Raymond Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

86 ITD 791 · 2003 · ITAT

154

citing judgments

For services to qualify as 'Fees for Technical Services' or 'Fees for Included Services' under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs), they must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply such expertise independently.

CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust

144 ITR 146 · 1983 · High Court

124

citing judgments

Sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, which define total income and chargeability, are subject to Section 90, meaning that Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override the Act's provisions in case of a conflict.

Assessing Officer (International Taxation) v. Nestle SA

458 ITR 756 · 2023 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

The benefit of a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is available only upon notification by the Government. A notification under section 90(1) is a necessary and mandatory condition for giving effect to a DTAA or any protocol that alters existing law.

Ms. Brinda Ramakrishna v. ITO

135 Taxmann.com 358 · 2022 · ITAT

109

citing judgments

The filing of Form 67 for claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is a directory requirement, not mandatory. Rule 128(9) does not provide for disallowance of FTC due to delay in filing this form. Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) override domestic law.

CIT v. Havells India Ltd.

352 ITR 376 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

For royalty income, especially in the context of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA), the 'source of income' is the determinative factor for taxability, rather than merely the 'source of receipt'.

Judgments citing double taxation

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO - Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2339/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

that the Ld. AO has estimated income on the entire deposits including the receipts on which TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation. The Ld. AR filed detailed written submissions raising the following contentions and urged that the Ld. AO may be directed to re-compute ... income @ 25% on ad hoc basis on the entire deposits including the receipts on which the TDS was duly deducted which has resulted into double taxation as contended by the Ld. AR. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is an agriculturist

Prasad Ramchandra Patil, Uran, Panvel vs. ITO Ward 3, Panvel

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2338/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 132ASection 144Section 153ASection 69A

Bimal Kumar Sikaria, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2395/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Bimal Kumar Sikaria…….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 159, Ramdulal Sarkar Street, Kolkata-700006. [Pan: Aurps0380C] Vs. Acit, Circle-40, Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A N Chatterjee & G Banerjee, Fcas, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Transportation & Filed His Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income At Rs.35,55,000/-. The Case Of The Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. On Examination Of The P & L A/C & 26As Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Found Mismatch In 26As Of Rs.26,78,988/- & Added The Same In The Hands Of The Assessee. Bimal Kumar Sikaria 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.26,78,988/- As The Failed To Discharge His Onus To Prove His Case.

Section 143(2)Section 250

assessee. We further find that the assessee shown income in subsequent year and taxes were duly paid and making the said would amount double taxation on same income. We, therefore, 2 Bimal Kumar Sikaria on the request of the assessee and in the interest of natural justice, we deem

Sabapathi Chettiar Velammal, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Circle1, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

especially when the same amount has been included in sales and offered to tax and separate addition u/s.68 is a double taxation which is not acceptable and against the law. 3. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of jewellery at Tirunelveli as proprietrix of M/s.Sivagami Jewellery ... ld.AR contended that the section 68 cannot be invoked for recorded sales forming part of turnover. The ld.AR submitted that the addition results in double taxation as the amount of additions made forms part of business receipts, which has already credited to Profit & Loss Account. Further, the ld.AR contended that

Joita Ram Nanji Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4(2), Mumbai, Income Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 8357/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

mechanical and non speaking as it 6 ignores written submissions evidence and case laws placed on record. 7. The addition results in double taxation of income already 7 offered. The same income cannot be taxed twice as held in CIT vs Excel Industries Ltd 2013. 8. The appellant reserves ... found, registered agreement and banking trail proving full payment through bank ignored, CIT(A) order is non speaking and the addition results in double taxation, Supported by Supreme Court and High Court decisions including Andaman Timber Industries 2015, Kishanchand Chellaram ITA No. 8355/MUM/2025/AY 2017-18 ITA No. 8356/MUM/2025/AY

Joita Ram Nanji Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 8356/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Joita Ram Nanji Ram Purohit, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 8355/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Buayananda Pruseth

Section 153CSection 250Section 69

Goldman Sachs Mauritius Nbfc Llc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – (International Taxation) - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5926/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Goldman Sachs Mauritius Nbfc Assistant Commissioner Of Llc, Income Tax – (International C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Taxation)-2(3)(2), Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Room No.610, 6Th Floor Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400028 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Pan: Aaecg8689C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2025, Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2025-26/1077165542(1), Dated 18.06.2025 Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2023-24. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 5Section 74

against the long- term capital gains claimed as exempt during AY 2023-24 under Article 13(4) of India Mauritius (IM) Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Treaty). 1.1. The learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in not appreciating the fact that ... claimed as 3 Goldman Sachs Mauritius NBFC LLC AY 2023-24 exempt during the year under consideration under Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is incorporated as a company in Mauritius and qualifies

Jagdeep Singh Dhanoa, United Arab vs. Income Tax Officer It 2(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1681/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarjagdeep Singh Dhanoa Vs. Income Tax Officer, 8202, 23 Marina, Po Pox It (2)(1), Mumbai 73392, Dubai Marina Dubai 1724, 17Th Floor, Air Ar, Foreign, India Building, United Arab Emirates- Nariman Point, 73392 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadpd4843R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 26.04.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Office Of The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) (1), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

granted to the AEs of the Appellant. 1.2 The Ld. DRP erred in not applying the provisions of Article 11 of the India-UAE Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) which provides for taxation of interest income on receipt basis. 1.3 The Ld. DRP has erred in not holding that since

Jitendra Kumar Agarwal HUF, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 454/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

justification to treat the cash sales as unexplained cash credit and no such addition could be made u/s. 68, which would amount to double taxation in the hands of assessee. The cash sales, being part of regular business transactions recorded in audited books of account, were offered

Sri Venkateswara Oil Distributors, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gunter

ITA 444/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

income has already been offered for taxation, the same cannot be taxed again and the impugned assessment order so passed has led to double taxation, hence the Honorable CIT (Appeals) is not justified in upholding such illegal action of the learned Assessing Officer 3. That, having regard to the facts

ITO, Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

For Appellant: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

bank account, and if nothing incriminating was found to the contrary, then addition under section 68 of such cash sales would amount to double taxation. ii. Dewas Soya Ltd., Ujjain vs. ITO ITA No.336/IND/2012 wherein the ITAT Lucknow Bench had held that the claim of the assessee that such addition ... double taxation was correct because on the one hand, the cost of the sales had been taxed and on the other hand, amounts received from the above parties had also been added under section 68 of the Act. In that case, the assessee had been maintaining a sales register

Rajendran Sharmila, Annur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No 2315/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendran Sharmila 1/66 Main Road, Kariagoundanur Vadakkalur Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641653 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Све (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan: Bicps 3272 D] अपीलार्थीकी ओरसे/ Assessee By Mr. K. Muthukumar, Ca प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे / Respondent By Mr. C. Sivakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of 16.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Dated 07.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Confirming The Addition Of Rs.70,50,000/- Made By The Ao U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”).

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्रीमनुकुमारगिरि, न्यायिकसदस्य एवं श्रीएस. आर. रघुनाथालेखासदस्य BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

Bindu Sunilkumar Kalappat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8262/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul RathiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (SR. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 54

long-term capital gain declared in his hands was Rs.3,66,667/-. It was thus contended that the same income cannot be subjected to double taxation in the hands of the assessee. The 3 Bindu Sunil Kumar Kalappat Ld. AR accordingly prayed that the matter be remanded to the file

Tabassum Abdulla Inamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6561/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

been claimed under the provisions of section 90 of the Act. Assessee has claimed relief, also taking into account Article 25 of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) as reported in her return. The said return was processed by CPC, Bengaluru u/s. 143(1) by issuing intimation dated

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Kakinada vs. Sudha Agro Oil and Chemical Industries Limited, G.Ragampeta

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 518/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 148Section 250

consideration was already recorded in their books of accounts. e) Since the amount was already offered as income, making an addition again amounts to double taxation and the same is not permissible in the eyes of law, it was stated by the assessee. f) Not satisfied with the explanation ... 518/VIZ/2024 & CO. No. 18/VIZ/2025 Sudha Agro Oil and Chemical Industries Limited = regular books of assessee making the same addition as “accommodation entry” amounts to double taxation. In view of the same, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and the addition made by the Ld. AO is deleted

Sarfarazkhan Sarvarkhan Pathan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2016/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69A

facts and in law, contending that all bank entries were duly recorded in the books of account and that the additions resulted in double taxation. The assessee also sought admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules and challenged the levy of interest under sections 234A ... investment. The estimated addition of Rs.34,96,643/- being 12.5% of bank credits was likewise upheld by CIT(Appeals). The ground relating to double taxation was dismissed for want of any supporting explanation. The request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A was rejected as no such evidence

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2585/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2584 & 2585/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Anil Bhagwan Turuk, V Income Tax Officer, 431/2329, Sant Tukaram S Ward-8(3), Pune. Nagar, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Aappt2146K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 23.07.2025 & 28.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 13.09.2022 & Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

paid the employees their salaries. Ld.AR filed an elaborate submission explaining arrear salary received by Assessee. Ld.AR pleaded that there has been double taxation in the case of assessee. 4.1 However, it is an admitted fact that these details were not filed during assessment proceedings. Substantial justice is more important

Anil Bhagwan Turuk, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2584/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

Mithlesh Amarnath Maurya, Navi Mumbai vs. Ward 28(2)(1), Mumbai, Vashi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7731/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmithlesh Amarnath Ito Ward-28(2)(1), Maurya It Office, Vasi Flat No.302, Plot No. 17 & Vs. Railway Station 18, Hari Darshan Chs, Building, Navi Sector-9, Ulve, Mumbai-400 703 Maharashtra-410 206, Navi Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Asxpm2717M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Prajakta Arote, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

merely on procedural grounds, despite identical explanation being accepted in the assessment of the appellant’s spouse (order dated 17.03.2022). Such addition results in double taxation of the same source. F. Section 69: No Evidence of Cash Payment: The allegation of ₹3,37,000/- on-money payment is unsubstantiated