https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779232 ITAT PUNE held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits under s.250(6) but, on facts, the assessee had shown that the spouse executed the sale and disclosed the entire sale consideration and capital gain in his return. The AO had already assessed the same capital gain in the spouse's hands. Consequently, making the identical addition in the assessee's hands amounted to double taxation. The addition was held unsustainable and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779232 ITAT PUNE held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits under s.250(6) but, on facts, the assessee had shown that the spouse executed the sale and disclosed the entire sale consideration and capital gain in his return. The AO had already assessed the same capital gain in the spouse's hands. Consequently, making the identical addition in the assessee's hands amounted to double taxation. The addition was held unsustainable and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779232