https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767486 The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of 14,06,250/- in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the income from the cash deposits, which were admitted by Shri Devesh Upadhyaya to belong to him, had already been assessed in his hands. Therefore, there was no justification for the addition in the assessee's income, as this would result in double taxation. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that income should not be doubly assessed when ownership and prior assessment are clear. en-us Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 06:45:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767486 The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of 14,06,250/- in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the income from the cash deposits, which were admitted by Shri Devesh Upadhyaya to belong to him, had already been assessed in his hands. Therefore, there was no justification for the addition in the assessee's income, as this would result in double taxation. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that income should not be doubly assessed when ownership and prior assessment are clear. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767486