“double taxation”

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Hoshang Manekji Havewala, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Essa Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethessa Shaikh, Vs. Ito Ward 17(1)(1), 106, Kautilya Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 29, Ismail C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (East), Dossa Building, 117 Shaida Mumbai-400051. Marg, Mumbai-400009. Pan/Gir No: Cdgps7700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar (Virtually Present) Respondent By Shri Aditya Rai (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

income is declared under section 44AD, no further scrutiny of turnover OR deposits can be made. 3. That the addition made amounts to double taxation of the 3 same business receipts, which is bad in law and contrary to the spirit of presumptive taxation. ITA No.8266/MUM/2025/AY 2018-19 Essa Shaikh

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-1 Palghar, Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Heir of the Appellant and the transaction thereof has been income is duly offered for tax thereby the addition of the same amount is double taxation. 7. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each ... income. It was contended that the same transactions having already been subjected to tax in the the hands of the deceased amounts to double taxation. 14. The learned AR further submitted that all relevant documentary evidences in support of these contentions were filed before the learned CIT(A). However

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Heir of the Appellant and the transaction thereof has been income is duly offered for tax thereby the addition of the same amount is double taxation. 7. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each ... income. It was contended that the same transactions having already been subjected to tax in the the hands of the deceased amounts to double taxation. 14. The learned AR further submitted that all relevant documentary evidences in support of these contentions were filed before the learned CIT(A). However

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1 Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Heir of the Appellant and the transaction thereof has been income is duly offered for tax thereby the addition of the same amount is double taxation. 7. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each ... income. It was contended that the same transactions having already been subjected to tax in the the hands of the deceased amounts to double taxation. 14. The learned AR further submitted that all relevant documentary evidences in support of these contentions were filed before the learned CIT(A). However

Rakesh Jain As the Legal Heir of Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1, Palghar, Thane

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7674/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 7675/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. Ita No. 7676/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. Ita No. 7677/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rakesh Jain As Legal Ito Ward-1, Heir Of Bhawarlal Shrilal Bidco Road, Jain, Vs. Palghar, Shop 5, Vaibhav Complex, Maharashtra – Irani Road, Malyan, 401 404 Dahanu Road, Thane – 401602, Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Abjpj5270F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Four Appeals Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], All Dated 26.09.2025 & 18.09.2025, For Assessment Year 2013– 14. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Set Of Facts & Relate To Proceedings Initiated In The Name Of Late Shri Bhawarlal Shrilal Jain, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Heir of the Appellant and the transaction thereof has been income is duly offered for tax thereby the addition of the same amount is double taxation. 7. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each ... income. It was contended that the same transactions having already been subjected to tax in the the hands of the deceased amounts to double taxation. 14. The learned AR further submitted that all relevant documentary evidences in support of these contentions were filed before the learned CIT(A). However

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

before the disallowance was made in asse disallowance was made in assessment year 2012-13, the same has 13, the same has resulted in double taxation of the very same income. resulted in double taxation of the very same income. resulted in double taxation of the very same income ... assessment year 2013- thereof cannot again be subjected to tax in assessm thereof cannot again be subjected to tax in assessm 14, as such double taxation is impermissible in law. It was further 14, as such double taxation is impermissible in law. It was further 14, as such double taxation

Nobel Biocare India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

before the disallowance was made in asse disallowance was made in assessment year 2012-13, the same has 13, the same has resulted in double taxation of the very same income. resulted in double taxation of the very same income. resulted in double taxation of the very same income ... assessment year 2013- thereof cannot again be subjected to tax in assessm thereof cannot again be subjected to tax in assessm 14, as such double taxation is impermissible in law. It was further 14, as such double taxation is impermissible in law. It was further 14, as such double taxation

K M Textiles Export Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

held that once sales are accepted and corresponding income is taxed, a further addition of cash deposits arising from such sales would result in double taxation. Accordingly, the addition on account of cash deposits was deleted, and partial relief was granted in respect of the alleged bogus purchases. K.M. Textile ... Viewed in totality, we find that the reassessment has resulted in additions either founded on an incorrect appreciation of facts or leading to impermissible double taxation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition on account of cash deposits, and the remaining addition sustained on account of alleged

Income Tax Officer - 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. K M Textiles Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

held that once sales are accepted and corresponding income is taxed, a further addition of cash deposits arising from such sales would result in double taxation. Accordingly, the addition on account of cash deposits was deleted, and partial relief was granted in respect of the alleged bogus purchases. K.M. Textile ... Viewed in totality, we find that the reassessment has resulted in additions either founded on an incorrect appreciation of facts or leading to impermissible double taxation. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition on account of cash deposits, and the remaining addition sustained on account of alleged

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6663/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 2. Ita No. 6701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) 3. Ita No. 6702/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. Ita No. 6703/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2023-24) Aditya Birla Sun Life Dcitcircle-6(1)(1), Amc Limited, Room No. 502, 5Th 17Th Floor, One World Vs. Floor, Aayakar Centre Tower-1, Jupiter Bhavan, M. K. Mill Compount, 841, Road, Churchgate, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Delisle Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb6134D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi, Shri Shrey Agrawal & Shri Aadish Jain, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

/Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited 91. It was further submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer would result in double taxation of the very same capital gains, which is impermissible in law. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee contended that even if the addition were ... thereof, it would be evident that the gains had already been subjected to tax. It was contended that the impugned addition has resulted in double taxation of the same income. An explanatory note on capital gains, setting out the factual details and manner of computation, was stated to have been

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

gains, and there was no escapement of income. 91. It was further submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer would result in double taxation of the very same capital gains, which is impermissible in law. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee contended that even if the addition ... thereof, it would be evident that the gains had already been subjected to tax. It was contended that the impugned addition has resulted in double taxation of the same income. An explanatory note on capital gains, setting out the factual details and manner of computation, was stated to have been

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 6 (1)(1), Maharashtra

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA No. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703/Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These four appeals are

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA No. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703/Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These four appeals are

DCIT Circle 2.3.1, Mumbai vs. Stg Refractory Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

already been offered to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources” and that the impugned addition resulted in double taxation of the same income. The Revenue has not controverted this finding by bringing any contrary material on record. The deletion of the addition is therefore justified. 3 STG Refractory

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

subsequent years was received by the Assessee and therefore, addition of DPC as income for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 would amount to double taxation. In support, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed on record the details of receipt of DPC in subsequent years. 11.5. Per Contra ... been accepted by the Revenue, therefore, bringing to tax the same DPC again to tax during the relevant previous year would amount to double taxation. Thus, keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

subsequent years was received by the Assessee and therefore, addition of DPC as income for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 would amount to double taxation. In support, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed on record the details of receipt of DPC in subsequent years. 11.5. Per Contra ... been accepted by the Revenue, therefore, bringing to tax the same DPC again to tax during the relevant previous year would amount to double taxation. Thus, keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing