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 February 1st to February 7th.
Jagdish Prasad vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 319
In a recent case, the Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the additions made by the assessing officer (AO) on certain cash deposits made during demonetisation.
The assessee forwarded the appeal against an order made by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The assessee, Jagdish Prasad, who primarily sells electrical and electronic goods through his firm, M/s Bharat Electricals, reported an income of ₹42 Lakhs under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 321
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed an appeal by the assessee due to a delay of 879 days, finding insufficient cause for the delay. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., appellant-assessee,engaged in real estate development and building maintenance services, filed its return of income on December 8, 2006, declaring a loss of ₹2.09 crore.
The case was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment under section 143(3) was completed on March 31, 2006, disallowing ₹1.08 crore in financial expenses, ₹3.71 lakh in building maintenance charges, and ₹37,913 in property tax. The loss was recomputed at ₹96.17 lakh.
Pradip Kumar Jajodia (HUF) vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 322
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the reassessment of ₹20.19 lakh Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) as bogus due to lack of tangible evidence. Pradip Kumar Jajodia (HUF),appellant-assessee,, disputed the addition of ₹20,19,000, which was made by treating the LTCG from share sales as bogus and denying the exemption, along with the legality of the reassessment.
The assessee counsel referred to the reasons for reopening the assessment, which stated that the appellant had traded ₹20,19,000 in penny stocks of Appu Marketing and Manufacturing Ltd./Ejecta Marketing Ltd. (SCRIP CODE 538653). The Assessing Officer(AO) reviewed the company’s financials and found the rise in share prices was unrelated to fundamentals, suggesting the shares were manipulated. The AO concluded that the trade was a sham meant to launder undisclosed income and issued a notice under Section 148 to reassess the ₹20,19,000.
Income Tax Officer22(1)(6) vs Gajadharprasad Nathai Pal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 323
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)dismissed the revenue’s appeal since the tax effect, as shown in Form-36, was zero and fell below the ₹60,00,000 limit set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) circular.
The Revenue-appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18, dated 23.09.2024, in the case of Gajadharprasad Nathai Pal, respondent-assessee, wherein partial relief was granted to the assessee.
Eurofins Peenya Resources Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 324
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the Assessing Officer (AO)’s reassessment order, ruling it invalid due to the absence of material disclosure.
Eurofins Peenya Resources,appellant-assessee, formerly Advinus Therapeutics Ltd., filed its income tax return on November 29, 2023, reporting a loss of ₹30.68 crore. After scrutiny, the assessed loss was revised to ₹8.16 crore under Section 143(3) of the Act.
M/s. FLsmidth Pvt. Ltd. vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 325
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ), finding that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) failed to verify key issues during reassessment, leading to an erroneous and prejudicial order.
FLsmidth Pvt. Ltd,appellant-assessee,filed its return for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2014, declaring Rs. 35,34,10,370/-, revised later to Rs. 57,25,24,130/-. The AO passed an order on 28.02.2018, assessing income at Rs. 61,28,16,850/-, with additions for Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment (Rs. 3,71,56,870/-) and section 14A disallowance (Rs. 31,35,846/-).
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs EYGBS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 326
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the decision of the CIT(A) allowing a deduction under section 10AA of Income Tax Act,1961 on voluntary Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments made under an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA).
The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order dated 14.6.2024 passed by CIT(A) for the Assessment Year(AY) 2017-18. In this case,EYGBS (India) Private Limited, respondent-assessee filed its income tax return on 30.10.2017, reporting a total income of Rs. 100,26,18,189. It claimed deductions of Rs. 44,89,19,404 under section 10AA and Rs. 11,92,067 under Chapter VIA.
Decathlon Sports India VS The Deputy Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 327
The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reassess the arm’s-length price for Decathlon Sports India Private Limited’s trading segment after rejecting the foreign associated enterprise (AE) as the tested party.
Decathlon Sports India Private Limited,appellant-assessee,is a subsidiary of Decathlon, France, engaged in trading sports goods. It imports goods from AEs and third-party vendors for resale in India.
Amit Gupta and Sons HUF VS DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 328
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed the search assessment against the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14, noting a lack of proper approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A search and seizure operation was conducted on 1-03-2016 against the Devipriya group in Meerut. Following this, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ), Meerut, transferred the case of the assessee to the Assessing Officer (AO), who recorded a satisfaction note and issued a notice under Section 153C on October 11, 2017.
Income Tax Officer -13(1)(1) vs Jaideep Metallics And Alloys Pvt Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 329
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal against the deletion of a ₹94.3 crore addition on alleged bogus purchases, citing sufficient supporting evidence.
The Revenue-appellant challenged the 10/06/2024 order by the CIT(A) which allowed Jaideep Metallics and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.,respondent-assessee’s appeal against the 29/12/2022 Assessment Order for Assessment Year(AY)2021-2022 under Sections 143(3) and 144B of the Act.
IMNU Student Activity Association vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 330
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)set aside the matter for verification by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the disallowance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit due to the non-inclusion of certain income in the return.
IMNU Student Activity Association,appellant-assessee,filed a return showing “NIL” income and paid taxes of Rs. 1,86,110/-. On 12.01.2024, an intimation under Section 143(1) was issued, confirming “NIL” income and a refund of Rs. 1,56,200/-. However, the TDS credit was granted at Rs. 1,48,769/- instead of the claimed Rs. 1,86,110/-.
Guruvarya Aacharya Kalapurna vs CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 331
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] after the rejection of the Section 12AB registration application under the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the failure to provide necessary documents.
Guruvarya Aacharya Kalapurna Surishvarji Shekshanik Sangh,appellant-assessee, applied for registration under section 12AB of the Act. The CIT(E), rejected the application due to the assessee’s failure to provide necessary documents, including proof of expenses, bank statements, and donation details, raising concerns about the trust’s objectives and the genuineness of its activities.
Atul Dave vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 332
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded a recent case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] based on improper fact adjudication and the authority’s failure to consider relevant documents. The case involved an addition of ₹13 lakh made under Section 68 (unexplained cash credit) and ₹6.5 under Section 69 (unexplained money) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee, Atul Dave, is the proprietor of Dave Travels. The assessment proceedings arose from an alleged unexplained cash transaction with Shree Sava Jewellers. The Income Tax department discovered that the jewellers had been involved in bogus accommodation entries. The assessing officer (AO) issues a notice under Section 148 to Dave asking for the details of ₹13 lakh transaction.
EFY Technologies K 22 Malviya Marg vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 333
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, has remanded a case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, citing a lack of reasonable opportunity provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings.
This case pertains to EFY Technologies, a Jaipur-based firm, which had challenged an addition of Rs. 1.5 crore made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
Dr. Murugesh Shantveerya Hiremath vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 334
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has quashed the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act on a cardiologist, for the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal ruled that there was a “reasonable cause” behind the delay in getting the tax audit done for the relevant assessment year, which justified the cancellation of the penalty.
The case stems from a penalty of Rs.1,50,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on Dr. Murugesh Shantveerya,appellant-assessee for failing to file the tax audit report on time, as per Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. Dr. Shantveerya had filed his return of income on March 27, 2019, declaring an income of Rs. 4.4 crore, but did not upload the audit report within the prescribed time limit.
Shri Girja Shankar vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 335
The Lucknow Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the addition of Rs. 56.50 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the consequential penalty of Rs. 22.37 lakh imposed and directed a fresh hearing for the assessee. Shri Girja Shankar (assessee), against whom an ex parte assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer (AO).
The Total income of the assessee amounted to Rs. 57.03 lakh. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 56.50 lakh due to cash deposits of Rs. 36.50 lakh and Rs. 20 lakh in the bank account of the assessee. The AO also imposed a penalty of Rs. 22.37 lakh for alleged concealment of income.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 32(1) vs Fitrite Packers C/o. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 337
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), which had granted relief to Fitrite Packers, a Mumbai-based partnership firm engaged in manufacturing biscuit and confectionery wrappers for the Parle Group.
The dispute pertained to the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2020-21, where the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s decision to allow the assessee’s appeal against disallowances made during the processing of its income tax return.
Govindbhai Atmaram Thakor vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 338
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a delay of 340 days in filing an appeal considering the inability of the assessee to collect the notice and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. Govindbhai Atmaram Thakor, (assessee) is an agriculturist and employer of Modern Denim Ltd.
The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee made substantial cash deposits in his bank account during the demonetization period, amounting to Rs. 10,00,500/-. The AO issued a notice to the assessee. The AO noted that the assessee did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR).
M/s. Hotel Deepak vs DCIT, Central Circle 3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 339
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench deleted the addition made for declaration of income less than that made in the survey proceedings by the director of a company, by following the application of Presumptive Taxation Scheme under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the Assessee on 22.01.2018, wherein the statement of Shri Chandrakanth Ramanna Shetty, one of the partners of the firm-restaurant, was recorded, who has admitted that the diary recovered during survey operation pertains to Hotel Deepak. Shri Chandrakanth Ramanna Shetty made the voluntary declaration of income of Rs.22,51,948/- on total sales of Rs.1,08,80,197/-, however, in pursuance to survey operation, by filling its return of income on 30.08.2018 declared its total income at Rs.12,32,100/-.
Shramik Nagri vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 340
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning the addition of Rs. 3.53 crore as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Shramik Nagri SahkariPatsansthaMaryadit,appellant-assessee, appealed against the order dated 28.09.2024 for the Assessment Year(AY) 2015-16 passed by CIT(A) . The assessee’s counsel contended that the appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance, as the Chartered Accountant was hospitalized.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 341
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remitted the matter to the for fresh adjudication, finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] had failed to verify the applicability of the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020” before dismissing the appeal.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,appellant-assessee,faced its second round of litigation regarding the assessment for AY 2011-12, completed on February 28, 2014, under Section 143(3). The CIT(A) granted partial relief on August 31, 2016. The tribunal disposed of the appeal on October 4, 2021, since the appellant opted for the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.”
GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 342
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision on the addition of Rs. 1.49 Crore for bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) derived from penny stocks.
Gyan Prakash Gupta,appellant-assessee, appealed against the order dated 31.05.2019, passed by CIT(A) for the assessment year 2015-2016.The issue was the assessment of Rs. 1,49,56,620/- instead of the returned income of Rs. 41,630/-, due to an addition of Rs. 1,49,14,984/- for bogus LTCG from penny stocks.
Hari Krushna Machintech vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 343
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for a proper review after noting that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without considering the evidence provided by the assessee, concerning the addition of Rs.11.84 crore for bogus purchases.
Hari Krushna Machintech Private Limited,appellant-assessee, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012, declaring Rs.1,80,65,490/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer(AO) found that the assessee was involved in bogus purchases worth Rs.11.84 crore in circular trading with other entities. The funds moved between AV Sales, OM Surgical, Dishant Trading, and the assessee, returning to AV Sales.
Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar vs Deputy Commissioner of Income CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 344
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh consideration due to non-consideration of grounds and failure to provide adequate hearing.
Hemantkumar Rajendrakumar Shah,appellant-assessee, faced an addition under Section 69A during assessment for taking unaccounted accommodation entries through transactions in shares of M/s. Stampede Capital Ltd.
M/s. Gold Palace Jewellers vs ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) Bangalore CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 345
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded back for fresh adjudication to the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)[CIT(A)] after a delay of four years for disposing of the appeal citing a violation of natural justice.
Gold Palace Jewellers, (assessee) a partnership firm engaged in the business of dealing in gold and diamond jewelry, filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18, declaring an income of Rs. 24,89,750. The case was selected for scrutiny under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS), focusing on the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period.
Gourishankar Education Society vs CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 346
The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed a fresh reassessment due to the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assessing the assessee trust’s Rs. 3.30 crore Interest-free loan and interest income. Gourishankar Education Society, (assessee) a trust registered under the Societies Act, 1860, is also registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.
The trust filed its return of income for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, declaring a deficit of Rs. 2,16,73,473. This amount was disclosed after accounting for interest income of Rs. 14,55,213 received from various banks.
Devendra Kumar Dubey vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 347
The Agra bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ordered a fresh adjudication in a case involving income concealment allegations due to natural justice violation.
The assessee had filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16 by declaring a total income of Rs. 2.94 lakhs. The assessing officer (AO) passed the assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making a total addition of Rs. 2.61 lakhs.
Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 348
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] order, which had dismissed the appeal under Section 249(4) of Income Tax Act,1961 for non-payment of advance tax, considering the assessee’s senior citizen status and health issues.
Hingora Ali Mohd Vali Mohd, appellant-assessee, appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) under Section 249(4) for non-payment of advance tax.The paper book showed that the assessee paid ₹4,000 as advance tax on 30.12.2016 and ₹1,750 as self-assessment tax on 07.08.2017, with challans on record.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – 1(2)1 vs B. Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd A-Wing CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 349
In a recent case, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed an appeal put forth by the revenue, deleting a ₹2 Crore addition made under the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Assessee, B. Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd, provides health care in the therapeutic segment. In 2021, it filed its return of income, reporting a total loss of ₹11.9 Crores. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer (AO) found a liability of ₹2 Crores, which was not substantiated. The AO asserted that the assessee had shown liability concerning a creditor in the name of Santosh Trust.
Karunamoorthi Kavitha vs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 350
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Chennai Bench ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Rs. 35 lakh addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the assessing officer had wrongly classified gifts received from her mother and brother as unexplained cash credits without considering the supporting evidence provided by the assessee.
Dr. Karunamoorthi Kavitha ,the appellant, a gynecologist and owner of Vijaya Multispeciality Hospital in Dharmapuri, was subjected to a survey under Section 133A on March 21, 2018. The Income Tax Department found that she had not disclosed rental income from a medical shop and canteen in her tax returns.
Laxmi Nanda Kishore Velegatla vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 351
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Chennai Bench has ruled in favor of Laxmi Nanda Kishore, setting aside the Rs.12.14 lakh addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) had wrongly classified seized gold and silver jewellery as unexplained investment, ignoring CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (dated 11.05.1994), which allows for certain quantities of jewellery to be considered as explained.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs DCIT-14(2)(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 352
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted interest on excess self-assessment tax under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and partially allowed claim for additional interest under Section 244A(1A), restricting it to the period post-01.06.2016.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) originally filed its income tax return on 24.09.2009 and later revised it, increasing the reported income. After an assessment order was passed on 12.03.2012, the tax department raised a fresh demand of Rs. 619.42 crore.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1) vs Agrawal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 353
The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)], which deleted the additions made by the assessing officer (AO) by noting that the transactions were duly substantiated. ‘
In this case, the revenue had appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which had ruled in favor of the assessee.
Gopal Agarwal vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 354
The Agra Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to audit accounts, citing the pendency of the quantum assessment appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
Gopal Agarwal (assessee), had filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs. 4,28,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted a cash deposit of Rs. 5,21,89,264/- in the assessee’s bank account.
The Sangeet Plaza IFTEX Office Premises vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 355
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of Income Tax Act,1961 for interest earned from a cooperative bank.
The Sangeet Plaza IFTEX Office Premises Coop Soc Ltd., appellant-assessee,filed its return, which the Centralized Processing Centre(CPC) processed under section 143(1) and disallowed the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest from a cooperative bank. A rectification request under section 154 was also rejected.
DCIT vs M/s. Rajoo Engineers Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 358
The Rajkot bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not apply to share allotments by public limited companies in cases of amalgamation. M/s Rajoo Engineers Ltd., (assessee) is a public limited company engaged in manufacturing plastic extrusion machinery.
During the Assessment Year 2014-15, the company amalgamated with three private limited companies, issuing shares to the shareholders of these companies based on a swap ratio. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted discrepancies in the valuation of shares, claiming the swap ratio was skewed to benefit promoters’ related parties.
GEBBS Solutions Healthcare vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 356
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the deferred tax adjustment, stating that the Assessing officer (AO) accepted the assessee’s Income Tax Return without any adjustments.
The GEBBS Healthcare Solutions Pvt Ltd (assessee) filed an income tax return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, declaring an income of Rs. 18.60 crore. The Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, issued a proposed adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) related to various claims, including exempt income, deductions, and employee contributions.
ACIT vs M/s Hella India Lighting Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 357
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals(CIT(A))’s decision on the disallowance of ₹96.71 Lakh foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee due to import-export transactions without hedging.
The Revenue-appellant appealed against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)’s order dated 21.08.2023, which stemmed from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(DCIT)’s order under Section 143(3) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.In this case,Hella India Lighting Ltd,respondent-assessee,reported a loss of Rs. 96,70,990 due to foreign exchange transactions related to imports and exports.
ACIT vs M/s Hella India Lighting Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 357
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] decision, dismissing the disallowance of Rs. 3.15 crore expenses due to insufficient documentation. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC )’s order dated 21.08.2023, which stemmed from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( DCIT )’s order under Section 143(3) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
In this case,Hella India Lighting Ltd,respondent-assessee,engaged in automobile components manufacturing,claimed other expenses of Rs. 3.15 crore, supported by auditor verification and payments made through account payee cheques and bank drafts.
GEAR Foundation vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 359
The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessee to produce supporting documents after the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed depreciation over alleged double deduction.
Gear Foundation (assessee) is a trust, filed return of income declaring Nil income. The assessee claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee claimed depreciation on the assets. The Assessing Officer selected the case for Scrutiny and issued notice to the assessee.
ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1) vs HINDUKUSH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 360
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal due to low tax effect under Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) Circular No. 09/2024. The Revenue-appellant,appealed against the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2016- 17 where Hindukush Construction Pvt. Ltd. was the respondent-assessee.
The Revenue raised several grounds, contending that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the Rs. 50,00,000/- addition and disallowance under Section 68, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence for the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan, referencing the Rupal Jain Vs. CIT (2023) ruling.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
