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 January 18th to January 24th 2025.
M/s. Madurai Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd vs The PCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 196
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, stating that the Assessing Officer (AO) correctly allowed deduction under section 80IA of the act.
Madurai Power Corporation (assessee) is a corporation that filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) declaring Rs. 9.95 Crores after claiming a deduction under section 80IA of Rs. 41.21 Crores. The AO disallowed the amount of Rs. 53.24 Lakhs and issued a notice to re-open the assessment.
Dayal Singh vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 197
The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted an exemption under section 10(10B) for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) compensation citing that the Central-Government approved schemes that benefited Employees.
Dayal Singh (assessee) filed his Income Tax Return and offered Rs. 19,98,055 on account of VRS compensation. The VRS compensation was received from HMT Ltd (Tractor Division). Later, the assessee came to know that the amounts received under VRS were exempted under section 10(10B) of the Act.
Suresh vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 198
In a notable ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai Bench, upheld the assessment by the Income Tax Officer ( ITO ) estimating an income of 8% on gross receipts deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The case pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14, where the assessee, a Branch Manager of CISB Facility Services Pvt. Ltd., had deposited ₹1.99 crore in cash into his Axis Bank savings account but failed to file an income tax return initially.
Bundelkhand Ispat Melting vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 199
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for fresh adjudication after noting that the assessee failed to disclose the possession of multiple PANs, which led to confusion during appeal proceedings.
The case involves Bundelkhand Ispat Melting Pvt. Ltd.,the assessee,which had its reassessment proceedings scrutinized for multiple issues, including the alleged receipt of an unsecured loan and commission payments under false pretenses.
Girraj Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 200
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, has granted relief to a cold storage company, affirming that giving interest-free advances to farmers was a legitimate business strategy.
The case concerned Girraj Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., a company based in Shikohabad, which operates cold storage facilities for potato growers. During the assessment for the year 2011-12, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) had disallowed the company’s interest expenses amounting to Rs. 10,33,374. The disallowance was based on the claim that the company had extended interest-free advances to potato farmers while simultaneously raising interest-bearing loans from banks. The Assessing Officer argued that this practice was inconsistent with the principles of business expediency.
Aahvan Agencies Limited VS Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 201
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) rendered the penalty levied against the assessee as unsustainable due to the absence of mentioning a specific charge under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessing officer ( AO ).
The assessee has appealed against the order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT( A ) ] for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2015-16.
Vinodchandra Dahyabhai Darji vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 202
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed Fresh Adjudication of Addition at 8% of the Gross Profit due to denial of hearing to the assessee.
The assessee, Vinodchandra Dahyabhai Darji, had appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [CIT(A)] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2017-18.
Shree Sharvashram Jagruti Sansthan Trust vs CIT(Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 203
In a recent ruling, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the ex-parte order due to a lack of fair opportunity provided to the Trust to present its case and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption ) [ CIT(E) ] to conduct a fresh hearing.
The assessee, Shree Sharvashram Jagruti Sansthan Trust’s application for provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was rejected by the CIT(E) by noting that the trust failed to submit complete documents to establish the genuineness of its activities, their alignment with its stated objectives, and compliance with relevant laws.
Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary Patel Vas vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 204
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) quashed the assessment for failure to issue the required notice under Section 143(2)of the Income Tax Act,1961 and unjustified additions.
Jivarajbhai Ramabhai Chaudhary,appellant-assessee, filed the appeal 63 days late due to an oversight by the Chartered Accountant. The delay was explained and not opposed by the revenue counsel. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was heard on its merits.
YG Capital Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 206
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)allowed the deduction of Rs. 4,81,477 as sales promotion expenses under section 37(1) of Income Tax Act,1961 after the assessee provided additional evidence, including a balance sheet and acquisition agreement, supporting the claim that the expenses were legitimate business expenditures.
YG Capital Ltd.,appellant-assessee,filed an appeal that was delayed by 860 days. The appeal was first filed on time with the Pune ITAT, but was dismissed due to jurisdiction issues, as it should have been filed with the Kolkata ITAT. The order was received on 03-05-2024, and the appeal was filed online on 09-05-2024. The assessee requested the delay be excused, and the tribunal agreed, admitting the appeal for further review.
Abdulmannan Mohammedkasad Bastawala vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 205
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), held that the misuse of credit cards by a friend cannot be treated as personal expenditure. The assessee, Abdulmannan Mohammedkasad Bastawala, was a salaried employee.
The assessing officer ( AO ) observed that the assessee had only mentioned about salary from M/s Blue Dart Express Ltd. in the Income Tax Returns ( ITR ) and did not mention anything regarding credit card payments made by the assessee amounting to Rs. 19,96,363. The assessee was asked by the AO to explain these transactions through notices issued under Section 142( 1 ) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
M/s Manali Properties & Finance Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 207
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) condoned the delay in filing an appeal by the assessee based on bona fide reasons outlined in an affidavit including financial difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic, absence of legal counsel, and issues with communication regarding the assessment order and remanded the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh hearing.
M/s Manali Properties & Finance Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee, was involved in the business of trading, dealing, and investing in shares and securities. The case was selected for scrutiny by the AO, who added Rs. 6,14,83,565/- to the assessee’s income as income from other sources.
DCIT vs M/s. Allsec Technologies Limited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 208
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that commission payments made to non-residents for services rendered outside India are not taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) or business connection in India.
Allsec Technologies Limited, the assessee, paid selling commissions of Rs. 197.18 Lakhs to Allsechtech, USA. TDS was deducted for Rs. 99.55 Lakhs. Still, not for the remaining amount, as the assessee argued that the recipient had no business connection or Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. So, the payments were not chargeable to tax under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
PNC SPSCPL (JV) vs DCIT (TDS) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 209
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has allowed the appeal of an assessee, directing the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to verify the documents related to Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deposits.
The assessee, PNC SPSCPL (JV), filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the AO’s decision treating the assessee as an assessee-in-default for non-compliance of TDS provisions.
ITO vs M/s. Priya Estate Developers Private Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 210
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to Determine the Fair Market Value (FMV) of Shares by conducting a thorough Fact-Finding Process and by applying an Explanation under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Priya Estate Developers Private Ltd., the assessee, is a real estate developer.
During the assessment year 2016–17, the assessee issued 10,060 equity shares at a premium of Rs. 36,990 per share to one of its promoters, Sasikala Raghupati. The shares were issued by converting loans provided by the promoter into equity share capital supported by a valuation report from Raghu & Gopal Chartered Accountants.
Ritika Jain vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 211
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Agra Bench, has intervened and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to admit her appeal. This order comes in the backdrop of a contentious issue regarding the taxability of cash deposits made in her bank account during the demonetization period.
The case relates to the assessment year 2017-18, where Ritika Jain,the appellant-assessee who had migrated to the USA in 2014, did not file her income tax return, claiming that her income during the year was below the taxable threshold. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) had initiated proceedings and levied an addition of Rs. 16,24,600 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, citing unexplained cash deposits during demonetization.
Jain Steel Corporation vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 212
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Agra Bench, has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] and directed the case to be reconsidered on merits.
The decision was made in the case of Jain Steel Corporation for the Assessment Year 2016-17, wherein the ITAT found that the CIT(A) had violated the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without addressing the substantive issues raised by the assessee.
ACIT vs Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vija CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 213
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ), based on a non-editable mobile phone image allegedly showing higher sale consideration for certain properties citing the absence of corroborative evidence.
Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, the assessee was subjected to a search operation on February 5, 2020, which led to the seizure of an image extracted from his mobile phone. This image allegedly non-editable contained details of properties and associated investment amounts forming the basis for the AO’s additions as unexplained investments.
M/s. Ravikumar Distilleries Limited vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 214
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to recompute the disallowance of interest expenses confirming that the loans advanced by the assessee were funded through proceeds from an Initial Public Offering ( IPO ) held in an escrow account and not borrowings funds.
Ravikumar Distilleries Limited, the assessee, advanced loans of Rs. 2910.02 lakhs which the AO alleged were funded using interest-bearing borrowings. Based on this assumption, the AO disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 413.22 lakh and computed at 14.2%.
Mrs. Karunakaran Leela vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 215
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter concerning unexplained cash deposits for reconsideration observing that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the creditworthiness of certain loan creditors.
Karunakaran Leela, the assessee filed the appeal challenging the addition made by the AO and partially upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The case was related to unsecured loans totaling Rs. 120 lakhs claimed by the assessee from 17 creditors which were added to her income by the AO due to doubts regarding the creditors’ creditworthiness.
Jatinder Kumar Singla vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 216
The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned the partial disallowance of property improvement costs claimed by the assessee, directing full allowance based on the architect’s valuation certificate.
Jatinder Kumar Singla, the assessee, filed the appeal against the order dated March 26, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
ACME Housing India Private Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 217
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded matters to the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)[CIT(A)] considering that the non-appearance was due to employees’ exit and imposed Rs. 5000 as a penalty.
ACHE Housing India Private Ltd (assessee) is engaged in the building and development of real estate property. The assessee filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) and claimed depreciation on goodwill of Rs. 40,24,09,376 and several deductions related to delayed payment of TDS and delayed filing of return.
Shri Abhijit Uttamrao Deshmukh vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 218
The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the delay of 180 days for delay in filing appeal due to pending cases in civil courts and financial struggle of the assessee.
Abhijit Uttamrao Deshmukh (assessee) individual not filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) and the Assessing Officer ( AO ) noted that the Assessee received an amount of Rs. 10 Crores in transaction of land. Therefore, the AO reopened the assessment proceedings and added Rs. 10 Crore to the total income.
Rahul Kumar Singh VS AO, Ward-28(2)(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 219
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Mumbai Bench, remitted a case back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh consideration after the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices and provide critical documentation. Rahul Kumar Singh, appellant-assessee filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 8.11 lakh for the assessment year 2018-19.
The AO had initiated reassessment proceedings after receiving information from the “Insight Portal” and the Central Goods and Services Tax ( CGST ) Department, indicating that the appellant was a beneficiary of fake invoices provided by Himadri Foods Ltd.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Welspun Steel Limited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 220
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in a case concerning the applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case highlights key issues regarding the disallowance of expenses incurred for earning exempt income and the retrospective applicability of amendments made by the Finance Act, 2022.
The dispute involved Welspun Steel Limited, the Assessee, which was assessed for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed INR 7.98 crore under Section 14A, invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This disallowance was added to the income of the Assessee, Welspun Steel Limited, to compute taxable income under the normal provisions of the Act. Additionally, the AO applied this disallowance while computing the Book Profits under Section 115JB.
Smt. Shanaj vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 221
The Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the addition of Rs. 72,14,060 to the assessee’s income and the capital gains tax levied due to the failure of the authorities to consider key evidence regarding the land’s municipal status.
Shanaj,appellant-assessee,filed an appeal challenging the addition of Rs. 72,14,060/- to her income by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the subsequent confirmation of this addition by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The main issue in the appeal revolves around the classification of the land in question, with the appellant asserting that the land was situated beyond the municipal limits of Sardarsahar, which would affect the tax implications associated with it.
Income Tax Officer vs Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 222
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Jaipur Bench, comprising Judicial Member Dr. S. Seethalakshmi and Accountant Member Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), deleting an addition of ₹1.7 crore made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to unexplained cash credits.
Shell International B.V VS Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 223
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) rejected the taxability of services under the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty, ruling that the services provided did not involve the transfer of technology and , therefore, did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services ( FTS ) under the treaty. Shell International B.V.,appellant-assessee, managed the global recruitment team for the Shell Group under CHR recruitment services, supporting regional hiring and broader talent strategies.
Costs were allocated to Shell entities based on the number of recruitments. The Assessing Officer ( AO ) classified these as fees for technical services, citing the specialized expertise and consultancy provided.
The JCIT vs Gujarat Housing Board CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 224
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), confirmed tax exemptions for Gujarat Housing Board Under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and rejected the Revenue’s appeal.
The case relates to multiple assessment years, including 2011-12 and 2015-16 to 2018-19, during which the Revenue had challenged the Gujarat Housing Board’s claim of exemption under the Income Tax Act. The Revenue had earlier taken the matter to the Supreme Court after the Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the Housing Board, directing the assessment officer to re-examine the exemption claims in light of relevant judicial precedents.
Joginder Singh vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 225
The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 228-day delay in filing an appeal acknowledging illiterate agriculturists lacked awareness of tax procedures and remanded unexplained cash credit matters for reconsideration.
Joginder Singh, the assessee, an agriculturist residing in Mohali, contested the order dated 10.02.2023, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the Assessment Year 2011–12.
Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. vs The Dy.CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 227
In a recent case, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ], National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ) in the case of Amjay Medimax India, for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee, Amjay Medimax India Pvt Ltd, declared an income of ₹60 Lakhs. Still, on further assessment following scrutiny by the assessing officer (AO), it was found that it had a total income of ₹7.9Cr. The AO, on this finding, made an addition of ₹2 Cr under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained cash deposits. The AO made a disallowance of ₹25 lakhs under Section 14A for expenses found.
Aashna Diamond vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 228
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai held that no addition by way of disallowance of alleged bogus purchases is warranted when the GP rate exceeds genuine purchases. The assessee, is a trader, importer and exporter of diamonds.
The revenue conducted a search and seizure operation on October 3, 2013, at the premises of Rajendra Jain, Sanjay Choudhary, Dharmi Chand Jain, and their associated companies. The authorities claimed that these entities were engaged in issuing bogus sales invoices without actually supplying goods.
Ram Ji Lal vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 229
The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to opting for resolution under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas, 2024 ( DTVSV ) Scheme. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal while incorporating a conditional clause permitting revival if the benefits under the scheme were not realized due to technical issues.
Ram Ji Lal, the assessee, had filed the appeal challenging the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was related to a dispute regarding his income tax assessment for the financial year 2006-07.
Khidmat-E-Khalq Charitable Trust vs C.I.T. (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 230
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently granted relief to an Appellant, approving the delay in application for approval of fund from the date of commencement of activities of the Assessee-trust, in terms of Circular No.7/2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
An Income Tax Appeal filed by Khidmat-E-Khalq Charitable Trust against the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Exemptions) ( CIT(E) ); the Assessee sought to impugn an order passed by the CIT(E) rejecting application for approval under Section 80G(5). The application was rejected by the CIT(E) on the grounds that the activities of the assessee-trust commenced on 17.09.2020, requiring them to file application in Form-10AB on or before 30.09.2020 as per the directives of CBDT Circular No.6/2023.
Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 231
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] for further scrutiny regarding the validity of proceedings under Section 153C of Income Tax Act,1961 for Assessment Year 2006-07.
Technodot Engineers Ltd.,appellant-assessee, was involved in a search operation under Section 132 of the Act, during which several documents and assets were seized. This led to proceedings under Section 153C of the Act, and the main issue raised by the assessee concerned Assessment Year 2006-07.
Kiwans Farsuram Bhamwala vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 232
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently set aside an ex-parte addition ₹15 Lakh held as unexplained Bank Deposit by a deceased assessee, while calling on the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to conduct de novo assessment.
The Assessee, Nayanaben Farsuram Bhamwala had failed to file her returns for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 against which numerous notices and show-cause notices had been issued by the Department.
Rajwinder Singh vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 233
The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that not all bank deposits could be presumed as taxable income and remanded two appeals concerning additions of unexplained cash deposits made by agriculturists.
The appeals related to Rajwinder Singh for Assessment Year 2011-12 and Amarjeet Singh for Assessment Year 2012-13, challenging the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A)) which upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) without addressing the appellants’ submissions.
Salaam Social Medical VS Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 236
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, has restored the approval application under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act,1961 filed and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to reconsider the application based on the corrected Form 10AB.
The appeal, filed by the assessee, Salaam Social Medical Services Foundation, a non-profit organization challenged the rejection of its 80G approval application by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) , CIT(E) on 5th September 2024. The rejection was based on the grounds that the applicant had failed to regularize its provisional registration under Section 12A, and thus, did not meet the necessary prerequisites for 80G approval.
The ACIT vs M/s. Vardha Infra Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 234
The Jodhpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s deletion of the addition of ₹13.87 crore under section 40(a)(ia) for delayed Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) payment based on the net profit rate estimation, noting that no separate addition could be made once the books were rejected and income was estimated using this method.
The Revenue-Appellant appealed against the order passed by CIT(A) dated 18-01-2024, for assessment year 2017-18. In this case, Vardha Infra Ltd.,respondent-assessee,e-filed its return for AY 2017-18 with NIL income and carried forward losses of Rs. 5.52 crore.
Pawan International vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 235
The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of Rs. 32 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer (AO), citing the assessee’s higher sales as a result of the discounted sale of opening stock. Pawan International, the assessee, is a trader of artificial goods and flowers, operating from Ludhiana.
The assessee faced scrutiny regarding cash deposits of Rs. 32 lakhs in its bank account for the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these deposits as income from undisclosed sources citing unusually high cash sales compared to previous years.
Dharmendra Kumar vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 237
The Patna bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in the case of Mr Dharmendra Kumar confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer ( AO ) as unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The assessee moved the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)].
The case originated during the demonetisation period, where the AO observed cash deposits worth ₹1.10 Cr in multiple bank accounts belonging to the assessee, Dharmendra Kumar. The AO had initiated proceedings under Sections 147,142(1), and 148 of the Income Tax after discovering unexplained cash deposits through the Asset Information Management System (AIMS) database and the ITBA modules.
HBS View Private Ltd. vs PCIT-8 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 238
In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai Bench, dismissed an appeal and upheld the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal, concerning the assessment year 2018-19, challenged the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT, who had found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
HBS View Private Ltd., the appellant-assessee, contended that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was improper, arguing that the twin conditions of “error” and “prejudicial to the interest of revenue” were not fulfilled. The appellant claimed that the expenditures in question, although not claimed in the current year, did not affect the revenue’s interests.
The Capital VS The Deputy Director of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 239
In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai Bench, has set aside an adjustment made by the Central Processing Centre ( CPC ) against Pfizer Limited under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal’s order, pronounced on December 31, 2024, granted Pfizer’s claim for a deduction of INR 5.3 crore in respect of indirect taxes paid by the company, a decision that came after the company’s appeal against the adjustments made by the CPC in its assessment for the financial year 2022-23.
The dispute in this case revolved around Pfizer’s claim for deductions related to taxes paid under protest and the settlement of tax disputes under various state government amnesty schemes.
Samarth Raghuveer SahakariPatsanstha Ltd VS Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 240
In a significant ruling, the Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld that cooperative credit societies are eligible for deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal’s decision came in response to appeals filed by Samarth Raghuveer Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. against orders passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ( NFAC ) for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
The core issue in the appeals revolved around the denial of deductions under Section 80P, a provision aimed at promoting the growth of cooperative societies. Specifically, the appellant society claimed deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for its income earned from business activities with its members, and Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks.
Anantrai Vithalbhai Parmar vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 241
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), in the case of Anantrai Vithalbhai Parmer, remanded the case back to the assessing officer ( AO ) for fresh assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.
The assessee, Anantrai Vithalbhai Parmer, had deposited ₹12 lakhs in cash in his bank account with the Bank of Baroda during the demonetisation period from November 9 2016 to December 31 2016. The assessee, however, failed to file his return of income as required under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. A notice per Section 142(1) was issued to the assessee but received no response.
Ramchandra Keshav and Company VS CIT(A)-30 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 242
In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai Bench, has remanded a case involving the partnership firm, back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh examination. The case revolves around the addition of Rs. 3.50 crores under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the AO had assessed as unexplained income due to discrepancies in cash deposits reported during the demonetization period.
Ramchandra Keshav and Company, appellant-assessee, a jewellery trading firm, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring a total income of 40.5 lakhs. During scrutiny, the AO discovered cash deposits of Rs. 3 crores in Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd and 50 lakhs in Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.
ITO- 19(3)(1) 405 vs ShivsahyadriSahakariPathpedhi 118 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 243
In a significant decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has ruled in favor of co-operative societies, allowing them to claim tax deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The ruling clarifies that co-operative banks, despite being distinct from primary agricultural credit societies (PACS), are eligible for such tax benefits, overturning previous assertions by tax authorities that co-operative banks should be excluded from the scope of these deductions.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Adarsh Foundation CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 244
The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that an agreement for the transfer of operations and movable assets cannot be grounds to deny exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.
Adarsh Foundation Trust (assessee) is a trust that operates various charitable institutions including SAL Hospital and Medical Institute (SHMI) and Kesar SAL Medical College and Research Institute (KSMC). The assessee entered into agreement with SAL Care Pvt Ltd., to address the financial difficulties.
Mohamedistiyak Mohamediqbal Patel vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 245
The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently deleted an income tax addition of ₹48,48,356, observing that the concerned Assessing Officer (AO) and precursory Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) had failed to adduce any specific information and evidence to incriminate the Assessee demonstrating the Assessee’s possession of unexplained income.
Emanating from an Order passed by the CIT(A), the Assessee Mohamedistiyak Mohamediqbal Patel challenged an income tax addition of ₹48,48,356 as ‘unexplained income’ without considering the Short-Term Capital Gains of ₹3,207.07 made by the Assessee from sale of shares of “M/s Comfort Fincap Ltd.” during Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15.
Abhaykumar Sevantilal vs ACIT Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 246
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the interest expenses of the assessee on alleged fund misuse citing that lack of nexus between borrowed funds and personal investments.
Abhaykumar Sevantilal (assessee) filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The Assessing Officer (AO) selected the cases for scrutiny and the assessment order was passed with some additions which included interest expenses. The AO disallowed the interest expenses due to borrowed funds utilised for personal investments.
Abhinandan Gramin Bigar vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 247
The Pune Bench of Income Tax appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that interest income from Business investment earned by Cooperative Society is eligible for deduction under section 80(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
Abhinandan Gramin Bigar (assessee) is a cooperative society filed its Income Tax Return (ITR) for Assessment Year 2020-2021 declaring NIL income and claimed deduction of Rs. 48,49,699 under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
Ananvaya Nyasah VS The CIT-Exemption CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 249
The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), has granted the trust the opportunity to rectify defects in Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with regard to registration applications. In this case, the assessee, Ananvaya Nyasah, a Jaipur-based trust, had filed appeals challenging the CIT(E)’s rejection of its applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [ CIT(E) ] had rejected the applications citing non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and failure to establish the genuineness of its activities. The rejection also led to the cancellation of the trust’s provisional registration.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
