ITAT Weekly Round-Up [April 27th- May 2nd]

This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan during the previous week, from April 27th to May 2nd

ITAT rejects Price-Rigging Allegations on Penny Stock Transactions Due to Lack of Evidence

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sh. Bal Kishan Arora

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 815

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the benefit of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on penny stock transactions, rejecting the Revenue’s claims of price rigging due to a lack of concrete evidence and confirming the genuineness of transactions.

The assessee, Bal Kishan Arora, had purchased 50,000 shares of Gold Line Finvest International Ltd. at ₹10 each on 15.01.2013 through a public offer. A year later, between 29.04.2014 and 07.05.2014, the shares were sold through the Bombay Stock Exchange for ₹19,942,030, yielding an LTCG of ₹1,94,02,145.

Relief for Tata Teleservices: ITAT Rules Interest Payments to China Development Bank Exempt Under India-China DTAA

Income Tax Officer vs Tata Teleservices Limited

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 817

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that interest payments by Tata Teleservices to China Development Bank (CDB) are exempt under Article 11(3) of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Tata Teleservices Limited, the assessee, had made interest payments to CDB during the Assessment Year 2014–15. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the interest as taxable in India, arguing that the exemption under Article 11(3) of the DTAA was not applicable in this case. The AO raised a demand under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing failure to deduct tax at source on these payments.

No Income Tax Addition can be made Solely Based on Hypothecated Stock Disclosure to Bank: ITAT

Raj Kumar Puglia vs ITO, Ward - 3(4)

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 818

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that income additions cannot be made solely based on the difference between stock disclosed to a bank and that recorded in audited accounts. Raj Kumar Puglia, the assessee, filed his return of income on 28.09.2012, declaring Rs. 2,74,604, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny, and statutory notices were duly issued. The assessee maintained a cash credit facility with State Bank of India, Sainthia Branch

ITAT Restores Trust’s 12A Registration, Imposes ₹2,500 Cost on CA for Negligence

Godavari Shikshan Mandal, Nashik vs CIT (Exemption), Pune

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 819

In a recent judgment, the Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored an application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of a Trust, while imposing a ₹2,500 cost for the negligence of the Chartered Accountant’s (CA) in ensuring compliance.

Godavari Shikshan Mandal (assessee), a trust, applied for its registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 02.04.2024. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ( CIT(E) ), while reviewing the documents of the trust, found some discrepancies and issued notices repeatedly seeking compliance proofs. But the assessee failed to respond to the statutory notices on time.

ITAT Grants Partial Relief on Minor Deposit & Depreciation Claims, Disallows Late ESIC & Commission Payments

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted partial relief to the assessee by allowing depreciation at 60%, permitting interest capitalization, and deleting the Section 68 addition for cash deposits in a minor’s bank account, while upholding disallowances for delayed  Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) payment and commission expenses.

Kastwel Foundries, the assessee, was involved in the production of ferro and master alloys. It reported a total income of ₹70,20,916 in its income return for the Annual Year (AY) 2012-13. The return was chosen for scrutiny through Computer Selected Scrutiny Selection (CASS). During the scrutiny, the  Assessing Officer (AO) made multiple additions, including ₹6,598 for delayed ESIC payments, ₹43,943 for disallowed depreciation, ₹2,16,995 towards interest capitalization, ₹7,57,682 for commission expenses, and ₹31,000 for unexplained cash deposits in a minor’s account.

Transport Firm Withdraws ITAT Appeal After Opting for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

Shri Laxmi Road Lines vs Pr.CIT

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 822

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Panaji Bench has dismissed an appeal filed by Shri Laxmi Road Lines after the Belagavi-based transport company opted to settle its tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme(DTVSVS), 2024. The case pertained to an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2017-18.

Shri Laxmi Road Lines had challenged the Pr.CIT’s revisionary order through an appeal before the Panaji ITAT bench. However, during proceedings, the assessee submitted a letter dated January 13, 2025 expressing its intention to resolve the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The company subsequently filed Form No. 2 under DTVSVS Rules and requested withdrawal of its appeal through another letter dated February 3, 2025.

ITAT Restores Co-op Society’s Appeal, Orders Fresh Hearing on Rs.1.1 Cr 80P Deduction Denial

The Mercantile Co-op Credit Society Ltd vs ITO-Ward-6

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 823

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Panaji Bench has set aside an ex parte order against The Mercantile Co-op Credit Society Ltd., directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to re-examine the denial of Rs.1.1 crore deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Panaji bench ruled that the cooperative society deserved another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

The Belagavi-based credit society had filed its return for assessment year 2017-18 declaring nil income after claiming Rs.1.10 crore deduction under Section 80P, which provides tax relief to cooperative societies. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the claim during scrutiny, additionally adding Rs.80.33 lakh as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, resulting in a total assessed income of Rs.1.91 crore. The CIT(A) later upheld partial additions through an ex parte order after the society failed to respond to multiple hearing notices.

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal as Tax Effect Falls Below CBDT’s Rs. 60 Lakh Threshold

ITO vs Intime Vanijya Private Limited

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 824

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata bench has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against Intime Vanijya Private Limited, citing that the disputed tax amount of Rs. 7.97 lakh fell below the Rs. 60 lakh threshold prescribed under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 09/2024.

The case pertained to Assessment Year 2013-14, where the Assessing Officer had initially made an addition of Rs. 25.80 lakh under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating certain transactions as unexplained cash credits. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had deleted this addition, prompting the Revenue to appeal before the ITAT.

Mere Confession Of Assessee Not Enough for Conviction Without Credible Evidence: ITAT

Late Sh. Brij Kishore Kochar vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 821

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the ₹1.33 Cr addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO), stating that a confession made by the assessee without corroborative evidence cannot justify an addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

While conducting a search and seizure at Aerens Group, authorities found documents mentioning Brij Kishore Kochar’s name (assessee). Based on these, the tax department claimed that the assessee made ₹1.77 crore in unexplained cash investments. The assessee initially admitted to these investments. However, the very next day, he retracted this statement, saying it was given under pressure. The tax department still added ₹1.33 crore to his taxable income for 2006-07, which the assessee challenged before the tribunal.

Additions u/s 68/69A Cannot Survive Once Creditor Details Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness Are Proved: ITAT

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1) vs Arvindbhai R Nanavati HUF 398

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 820

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, held that the addition made under Section 68/69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be sustained once the details of the creditors were verified. The tribunal thus set aside the ₹1.20 crore addition.

The assessee, Arvindbhai R Nanavati, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), did not file an income tax return for the Annual Year (AY) 2017-18. During reassessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted unexplained credits of ₹1.20 crore in the assessee’s bank account. The assessee declared nil income but could only partially explain loans of ₹1.12 crore from 11 creditors. The AO treated the entire amount as unexplained under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITAT Sets Aside CIT Order Denying 10(23C) Registration, Cites Lack of Opportunity and No Evidence Against Educational Purpose

Aanya Learning Foundation vs Commissioner of IncomeTax (Exemptions)

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 825

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Lucknow bench has overturned an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) that denied registration under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act to Aanya Learning Foundation, citing violation of natural justice principles and absence of material proving non-educational activities. The tribunal directed fresh consideration of the foundation’s application for tax-exempt status. Aanya Learning Foundation, an educational institution based in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, had applied for registration under Section 10(23C)(vi) in April 2018 shortly after its incorporation. The CIT(E) rejected the application in July 2018, claiming insufficient evidence of educational activities and allegedly affording only one hearing opportunity where the foundation’s adjournment request was denied.

Violation of Natural Justice: ITAT restores Addition on Demonitization Sales for Fresh Adjudication

Anupama Jewellery vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 829

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored an addition made on account of demonetization-period sales to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing violation of natural justice due to an ex-parte dismissal of the assessee’s appeal without addressing the grounds raised. Anupama Jewellery, (assessee) a partnership firm engaged in the jewellery business, filed its return of income for AY 2017–18 declaring income of Rs. 97,310. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, completed the assessment under Section 143(3) and determined a total income of Rs. 23,97,310.

HUF’s Share Transaction Dispute Concluded as ITAT Accepts Vivad Se Vishwas Settlement

Raghav Agarwal (HUF) vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 830

Top Stories HUF’s Share Transaction Dispute Concluded as ITAT Accepts Vivad Se Vishwas Settlement [Read Order] The tribunal did not examine the merits of the case, as the matter had been resolved through the government's dispute resolution scheme By Adwaid M S - On April 30, 2025 11:26 am - 2 mins read The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) after accepting the settlement of a long-pending tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The case involved additions of Rs. 84.85 lakh made by tax authorities regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Raghav Agarwal (HUF) had challenged a reassessment order for the 2015-16 financial year, where the Income Tax Department had treated LTCG (Long Term Capital Gains) of Rs. 84,85,078 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The assessee contended that the reopening of assessment was invalid, arguing that the reasons recorded were vague and based on borrowed satisfaction without independent inquiry. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had upheld the additions, prompting the appeal before the ITAT.

Order of Appellate Authority Seeking Requisite Information Must be Complied With: ITAT

Gurushri Umedpuri vs CIT(Exemption)

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 837

The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently imposed costs amounting to ₹5000 on an assessee charitable trust who failed to comply with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption) seeking requisite information from the assessee.  The assessee, Gurushri Umedpuri Gundikhad Kadva Patidar Charitable Trust, filed an application for registration of the trust under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.10.2023. The said application was rejected by the CIT (E) for the reason that no compliance was made by the assessee and the documentary evidence as called for by the CIT(E) was not furnished. The provisional registration granted earlier on 07.04.2022 was also cancelled. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E) , the assessee preferred the present appeal.

Validity of ₹95.56 Lakh Addition as On-Money u/s 69A: ITAT Deletes Addition Due to Lack of Proper Verification

Munjal Mrugesh Jaykrishna vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 833

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) deleted the addition of ₹95.56 Lakh as on-money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act,1961, ruling that the addition lacked proper verification. Munjal Mrugesh Jaykrishna,appellant-assessee,filed his income return on 28.05.2016, showing an income of Rs.67,61,690/-. The Assessing Officer(AO), after receiving information about an on-money transaction of Rs.95,56,000/- to Navratna Organizers and Developers Pvt Ltd (NODPL), found that income had escaped assessment. The assessment was reopened under section 147, and on 28.03.2022, the officer added Rs.95,56,000/- under Section 69A of the Act.

Unexplained Investment in Property: ITAT Deletes Rs. 13.73 Lakh Addition After Verifying Source from Fixed Deposits

Uday Ramesh Nayak vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 835

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)deleted the Rs. 13.73 lakh addition for unexplained investment in a property purchase after verifying the source from fixed deposits. Uday Ramesh Nayak,appellant-assessee, purchased Flat No. 1604, Zinnia Vasant Oasis, Andheri (East), Mumbai, on 29.08.2017 for Rs. 2,16,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) found that the appellant did not explain the source of the investment, despite providing an interest certificate. As a result, the AO added Rs. 2,16,06,693/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act.

ITAT Allows Appeal in Demonetization-Era Case, Finds CIT(A) Order Deficient in Reasoning

Jyoti Santosh Parakh Swaraj Cement Distributors vs ITO

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 826

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench has allowed an appeal filed by Jyoti Santosh Parakh Swaraj Cement Distributors, setting aside an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that had upheld tax additions related to cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The tribunal found the CIT(A)’s order lacked proper reasoning and directed a fresh examination of the case. The case pertains to assessment year 2017-18, when the assessee’s bank account was flagged for cash deposits totaling Rs. 20.70 lakh during the demonetization window (November-December 2016). The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated the deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee failed to file returns or respond to notices. The CIT(A) later dismissed the appeal without a detailed analysis, prompting the assessee to approach the ITAT.

ITAT Strikes Down Reassessment: Rs50 Lakh Threshold Not Met for Late Notice

Dilipkumar Laxminarayan Lohiya vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 827

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench has quashed a reassessment proceeding initiated by the Income Tax Department, ruling that the tax effect in the case did not meet the Rs 50 lakh threshold required for reopening past cases. The decision came in response to an appeal filed against a late reassessment notice, which the tribunal found unsustainable under the current monetary limits set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). Intime Vanijya Private Limited, appellant-assessee challenged the reopening of its assessment for the financial year 2013-14. The assessing officer had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to add Rs 25.80 lakh to the company’s income under Section 68, treating certain transactions as unexplained cash credits. However, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had earlier deleted the addition, observing that the department failed to prove the transactions were accommodation entries.

ITAT Directs AO to Revisit Penalty Proceedings After Completion of de novo assessment

Krupal Vikrambhai Patel vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 836

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the penalty of Rs. 10.22 lakh imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, after observing that the assessment order had already been remanded for fresh adjudication. Krupal Vikrambhai Patel (assessee), the penalty was levied in respect of additions amounting to Rs. 35,65,526 on account of unexplained investment and cash deposits. The original assessment had been completed ex parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 on 07.12.2018.

Additions u/s 69A Set Aside: ITAT Directs Fresh Assessment Allowing Taxpayer to File Additional Evidence

Tosifbhai Tajdin Halani (Individual) 42-43 vs The Dy.CIT

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 832

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit additional evidence. Tosifbhai Tajdin Halani, (assessee) had filed a return of income declaring Rs. 39,00,700 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18. The AO made additions under various heads, including unexplained advances of Rs. 57,55,000, cash gifts of Rs. 9,00,000 from father-in-law, unexplained opening cash balance of Rs. 10,45,585, short-term capital gains, and household expenses under Section 69C.

Relief for Adani Power: ITAT Invalidates Revision Order Passed Against Non-Existent Entity

Adani Power Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 831

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, after holding that it was issued in the name of a non-existent entity. Adani Power Ltd (assessee) formerly Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd., had filed an appeal against the PCIT’s order dated 30.03.2023 passed for the assessment year 2018–19. The PCIT had invoked revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Quashes ₹84 Lakh Addition Made u/s 69A, accepts Assessee’s Explanation on Cheque Discounting for Working Capital

Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 839

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to assessee, Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia by deleting an addition of ₹84,00,669 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the impugned transactions were genuine short-term financing arrangements facilitated through post-dated cheques, and not unexplained cash credits or accommodation entries. The case pertains to Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2015-16, during which the Assessing Officer had reopened assessments on the basis of information received through the Income Tax Department’s Insight Portal. According to the department, the assessee had allegedly entered into suspicious financial transactions with known accommodation entry operators, including entities linked to one Sanjay Tibrewal, who was under investigation following a search operation in 2019.

Pharmacy Income Not Separate Business, Exempt u/s 11: ITAT grants Relief to Charitable Hospital

The Bhatia General Hospital vs DCIT (Exemption)-2(1)

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 840

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that income earned from a pharmacy and chemist shop operated within a hospital is not a separate business activity, but rather an integral and incidental component of providing medical relief. The assessee, Bhatia General Hospital, a registered public charitable trust under Section 12a since 1975, had filed its return for the Assessment Year 2014–15, declaring income earned through its hospital operations, including receipts from an in-house pharmacy and chemist shop. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, treated the income of ₹15.08 crore from the pharmacy division and ₹44.49 lakh from the chemist shop as business income, invoking Section 11(4A), which requires that such income is exempt only if it is incidental to the charitable purpose and separate books are maintained.

Unexplained Bank Deposits and PMGKY Non-Consideration: ITAT Remands Matter for Final Evidence Submission and Verification

Vishal Vasudevbhai Modi vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 834

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination, directing the assessee to submit final evidence regarding unexplained bank deposits and income declared under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY). Vishal Vasudevbhai Modi,appellant-assessee, was picked for scrutiny because of large cash deposits during demonetization. The AO sent several notices asking for an explanation, but the assessee did not respond. So, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144.

Is Trust’s Registration u/s 12A a Prerequisite for Grant of Approval u/s 80(G)(5)(iv)(B)?: ITAT remits Matter

Nisa Foundation vs CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 838

The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently rejected an application of an assessee for approval under Section 80G (5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the order of the CIT(E) rejecting registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act, 1961 was set aside and fresh opportunity of being heard was granted to explain the fulfillment of conditions stipulated under the said section.   The assessee, Nisa Foundation, is a trust and had filed an application in Form 10AB for registration of the trust u/s.12A(1)(ac)(vi)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961  which was rejected by the CIT(E).

Top Stories ITAT dismisses Appeal as Taxpayer Opts for Settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme with Liberty to Restore

M/s. Flovel Energy Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 841

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed an appeal after the assessee opted to settle the pending dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS), 2024. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal as withdrawn, granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration in case the scheme application does not attain finality. The matter pertains to the Assessment Year 2017–18 and arose from an assessment order issued under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Flovel Energy Pvt. Ltd, had approached the Tribunal challenging the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer, which was later upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

Rs.14.93 Crores Addition u/s 68 for Share Capital Premium: ITAT Deletes AO’s Addition, Upholds Genuineness of Funds

East Delhi Leasing P. Ltd. vs ITO

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 842

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) deleted the AO’s addition of Rs. 14.93 crores under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961,for share capital premium, ruling that the funds came from genuine sources. East Delhi Leasing P. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,filed its return of income on 30.09.2013, declaring Rs. 3,89,400/- as income. The assessment was completed on 29.03.2016, with the AO raising the income to Rs. 14,97,26,462/-. During the assessment, the AO found that the appellant had received Rs. 14.93 crores in share capital from two group companies, issuing shares at Rs. 100 each (Rs. 10 face value and Rs. 90 premium).

Genuineness of Loans u/s 68: ITAT Orders Fresh Verification of Creditworthiness and Transactions

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)  restored the addition of ₹12.83 lakh under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961, for fresh verification, as the assessee had submitted Permanent Account Number(PAN), Income Tax Return(ITR), confirmations, and bank statements to prove the creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness of the transactions. Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama, appellant-assessee, was engaged in trading petrol, diesel, and oil through his proprietorship M/s Rudra Petroleum and was also a partner in M/s Rudra Minerals and M/s Rudra Construction. The assessments for both years were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Disallowance of Interest Payments for Non-Deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia): ITAT Remands Matter to AO for Verification of Form 26A

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the submission of Form 26A regarding the disallowance of interest payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act,1961, for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source(TDS). DushyantsinhYadvendrasinhChudasama,appellant-assessee,was engaged in trading petrol, diesel, and oil through his proprietorship M/s Rudra Petroleum and was also a partner in M/s Rudra Minerals and M/s Rudra Construction. The assessments for both years were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

S.43B Disallowance not Applicable When No Deduction Claimed and Liability Reported as Current Liability: ITAT

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)held that disallowance under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable when no deduction is claimed and the liability is reported as a current liability. Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama,appellant-assessee,was engaged in trading petrol, diesel, and oil through his proprietorship M/s Rudra Petroleum and was also a partner in M/s Rudra Minerals and M/s Rudra Construction. The assessments for both years were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Unexplained Opening Cash Balance of Rs. 22.19 Lakh u/s 69: ITAT Remands Matter to AO

Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer(AO) for further verification of the unexplained opening cash balance of Rs. 22.19 lakh under Section 69 of Income Tax Act,1961. Dushyantsinh Yadvendrasinh Chudasama,appellant-assessee,was engaged in trading petrol, diesel, and oil through his proprietorship M/s Rudra Petroleum and was also a partner in M/s Rudra Minerals and M/s Rudra Construction. The assessments for both years were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

FTS Classification in Management and Administrative Services: ITAT deletes ALP Adjustment Due to Lack of Technology Transfer

Bio-Red Laboratories (India) P. Ltd vs DCIT

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 845

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the Arm’s Length Price ( ALP ) adjustment made in respect of payments for AP management and administrative services, holding that the services did not involve a transfer of technology and therefore did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) . Bio-Red Laboratories (India) P. Ltd., appellant-assessee, had entered into international transactions during the year, including AP Management Services worth ₹8.71 crore, corporate management services of ₹2.09 crore, and purchase of fixed assets for ₹9.18 crore from its Associated Enterprises (AEs).

ITAT Orders AO to Grant Relief After Exemption Approval u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) Despite Lack of 12A Registration

Smt. Ashrafi Devi Shiksha Samiti vs Income Tax Officer

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 846

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) directed the Assessing Officer(AO) to grant relief after exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of Income Tax Act,1961, was approved, holding that the benefit could not be denied solely due to lack of registration under Section 12A. Ashrafi Devi Shiksha  Samiti, appellant-assessee, was a society running an educational institution named Niranjan Institute of Education Technology. It filed its income tax return on 20th October 2022, declaring Nil income. While processing the return under section 143(1), the Assessing Officer (CPC) proposed an addition of Rs.77,43,697 on the ground that the assessee was not registered under section 12A and therefore not eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

ITAT Cuts Estimated 20% Profit Rate to 12.5% in Bogus Purchase Case Calling It Excessive, remanded for Recomputation

Hardev Recycling Private Limited vs Assessment Unit, Delhi

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 848

In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench, held that the estimated profit rate of 20% applied on account of unsubstantiated purchases was excessive. The tribunal reduced the rate to 12.5%, granting partial relief to the assessee, and remanded the matter for recomputation.

The assessee, Hardev Recycling Private Limited, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading PET flakes (recycled plastic chips). It filed its return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, declaring a total income of 15 lakh.

ITAT Deletes Rs. 2.72 Crore Penalty as Additions in Quantum Assessment Were Deleted

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Pinac Stock Brokers Private Limited

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 847

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2.72 crore as quantum assessment was deleted by the ITAT. Pinac Stock Brokers Private Limited (assessee) in this case the Assessing Officer (AO) had imposed the penalty pursuant to additions made in the quantum assessment. The AO imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 2 Crore.

‘No Change in Facts from AY 2013-14 TDS Ruling’: ITAT Relies on Consistency Principle to Dismiss Revenue’s Appeal

Asstt.CIT (International Taxation) VS Allscripts (India) Pvt. Ltd

CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 849

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate  Tribunal (ITAT) relied on the consistency principle to dismiss the revenue’s appeal, as there was no change in facts from the assessment year (AY) 2013-14 TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) ruling in the assessee’s own case. In this case, the Revenue had appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the (AY) 2014-15.

In this case, the Revenue had appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the (AY) 2014-15. The Revenue has appealed before the ITAT, as it is dissatisfied with the CIT(A)’s decision to cancel the demand of Rs. 72,20,450, which was raised by the Assessing Officer for a shortfall in TDS on data line charges of Rs. 1,54,44,813 (taxed at 25%) along with interest under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates