ITAT Weekly Round-Up [Jan 25-Jan 31,2025]

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 24th to January 31st 2025.

Disallowance of ₹16.84 Lakhs as LC Discounting Charges u/s 36(1)(iii): ITAT Finds Addition Unjustified

BPS Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 261

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) found the addition of ₹16.84 Lakhs as LC discounting charges under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act,1961 to be unjustified. BPS Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,engaged in trading various products, filed its return on October 29, 2017, declaring a loss of Rs. 2,14,691/-.

The assessment was finalised at Rs. 15,47,014/- after adding Rs. 17,61,705/- for disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) due to interest-bearing funds allegedly used for interest-free loans.

CIT(A) has erred in noting the correct facts’: ITAT Remands matter for Fresh adjudication

Dr. C J Desai And Jaswantiben Desai Foundation vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 250

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the rejection of the 80G application under the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) [CIT(E)] due to an incorrect assumption that the trust lacked valid 12A registration.

Dr. C J Desai And Jaswantiben,appellant-assessee, had their application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) rejected by CIT(E) as their registration under Section 12A/12AB was denied on 25.08.2024. Referring to CIT(E) vs. Shree Tapeshwar Hanumanji Bajrang Charity Trust, CIT(E) held that Section 12A registration is a prerequisite for approval under Section 80G.

ITAT Condones Delay in Appeal Due to serious dispute among Partners, Remands Case for Fresh Assessment with Costs

M/s. Akshaya Builders Developers Promoters vs ACIT Circle-3(2)(1) Bangalore CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 252

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a 355-day delay in appeal due to a serious dispute among partners and remanded the matter for fresh assessment with costs.

The assessee, M/s. Akshaya Builders Developers Promoters is against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT( A ) ] for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

ITAT Dismisses Penalty for Disallowance of Deduction u/s 80IA(4), Citing Assessee’s Eligibility as Developer

Income Tax Officer vs M/s. BGSCTPL-MSKEL(JV) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 253

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the revenue’s appeal against penalty for disallowance of deduction under Section 80IA(4) of Income Tax Act,1961 citing the assessee’s eligibility as a developer.

The revenue-appellant appealed against the order dated 04.12.2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11,passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] , arguing that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the penalty of ₹65,57,761/- under Section 271(1)(c). It contended that the order of the Assessing Officer(AO) should have been upheld and prayed for the restoration of the original order.

Failure to prove Benefit Alone, not grounds for Transfer Pricing Disallowance: ITAT in Bosch Automotive Electronics case

M/s. Bosch Automotive Electronics Indi Private Limited vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 254

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), in the case of Bosch Automotive Electronics, held that the failure to prove benefit alone cannot be accepted as grounds for transfer pricing disallowance of transfer pricing.

The assessee has challenged the additions made by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Assessing Officer (AO), which were upheld by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for the assessment year 2020-21.

ITAT upholds CIT(A) Order Deleting ₹12.92 Crore Income Tax Addition relying on Past Agricultural Purchases to fix 5.02% Gross Profit

Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Patel vs The A.C.I.T CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 255

The Ahmedabad Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently affirmed an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) deleting an income tax addition of ₹12.92 Crore towards the annual income of an agricultural purchaser while determining gross profit at 5.02% based on the gross profit of earlier years.

The decision was given in two income tax appeals filed by Assessee Rajeshbhai Naranbhai Patel, a resident of Vadodara against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and vice versa  against the order of the CIT(A) order with regards to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

ITAT Remands Rs. 1473.8 Crore Unexplained Money Addition for Fresh Assessment due to Lack of Fair Hearing

Shri Alok Dave vs The Income tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 257

The Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the addition of Rs. 1,473.8 crore as unexplained money for fresh assessment due to a lack of fair hearing. 

The assessee, Alok Dev, filed his income tax returns for Assessment Year 2018-19, declaring Rs. 3,33,950 as income. His return was selected for scrutiny under the Computer-Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) system due to high-risk transactions. Despite multiple notices issued by the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee failed to respond, resulting in an ex parte assessment. The AO assessed Shri Dave’s total income at Rs. 1,474.1 crore, including Rs. 1,473.8 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Income Tax Act, 1961, and issued penalty notices separately.

Verification of Cash Deposits as Trust Income: ITAT Remands Matter to AO

M/s. Bhiwandi Nizampur Nagarpalika College vs Assessing Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 258

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify cash deposits as trust income.

Bhiwandi Nizampur Nagarpalika College,appellant-assessee, an ‘Association of Person’ (AOP), did not file its return of income for the year under consideration. The case was reopened under section 148 of the Act due to substantial cash deposits totaling Rs. 1,63,75,639/- in two bank accounts. Despite non-compliance during the assessment proceedings, the AO passed an order under section 147, 144, and 144B, determining total income at Rs. 13,10,051/- based on a net profit rate of 8% on the deposits.

Rejection of Trust Registration Due to Non-Submission of Required Documents: ITAT Restores Matter to CIT(E)

D S Mittle Charities 15/A vs CIT Exemption 601 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 259

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] after rejecting the trust registration application under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of Income Tax Act,1961 due to the non-submission of required documents.

D S Mittle Charities,appellant-assessee, had applied for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Act. During verification, the CIT(E) found that some required documents were missing and asked the appellant to address the deficiencies and provide additional details. Alleging non-compliance with these requests, the CIT(E) rejected both the applications.

Unexplained Cash Credits of Rs. 12.83 Crores Added u/s 68: ITAT Upholds CIT(A)’s Deletion

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Damodardas Mohanlal Chokshi Opp. Ghadiali Pole CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 260

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] in deleting the addition of Rs. 12.83 Crores made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 concerning unexplained cash credits. The revenue-appellant, appealed against the order dated 12.05.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18 passed by the CIT(A).

In this case,Damodardas Mohanlal Chokshi,respondent-assessee, filed a return declaring income of Rs. 7,95,73,300/- on 16.10.2017. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and selected for scrutiny. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 11.09.2018, followed by another notice with a questionnaire on 04.09.2019.

Undervaluation of Closing Stock: ITAT upholds CIT(A)’s decision to delete Rs. 2.92 Crore addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Damodardas Mohanlal Chokshi Opp. Ghadiali Pole CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 260

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2.92 crore made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69B of Income Tax Act,1961 for alleged undervaluation of closing stock.

The revenue-appellant, appealed against the order dated 12.05.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18 passed by the CIT(A).In this case,Damodardas Mohanlal Chokshi,respondent-assessee, filed a return declaring income of Rs. 7,95,73,300/- on 16.10.2017. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and selected for scrutiny. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 11.09.2018, followed by another notice with a questionnaire on 04.09.2019.

Disallowance of ₹16.84 Lakhs as LC Discounting Charges u/s 36(1)(iii): ITAT Finds Addition Unjustified

BPS Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 261

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) found the addition of ₹16.84 Lakhs as LC discounting charges under Section 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act,1961 to be unjustified.

BPS Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,engaged in trading various products, filed its return on October 29, 2017, declaring a loss of Rs. 2,14,691/-. The assessment was finalized at Rs. 15,47,014/- after adding Rs. 17,61,705/- for disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) due to interest-bearing funds allegedly used for interest-free loans.

Addition of Rs. 21,42,857 u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii): ITAT Allows Appeal for Failure to Refer Valuation to DVO

Bhavnaben Sanjaykumar Mistry vs Income-Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 262

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that the addition of Rs. 21,42,857 under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Income Tax Act,1961 could not be sustained due to the Assessing Officer(AO)’s failure to refer the property valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer(DVO).

Bhavnaben Sanjaykumar Mistry,appellant-assessee, filed the return of income on 20.10.2024, declaring Rs. 14,08,850/-, which was initially accepted by the AO. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Pr. CIT) set aside the order on 27.03.2019, directing a de-novo assessment due to the failure to apply Section 56(2)(vii)(b), leading to an underassessment of Rs. 21,42,857/-. The assessment was completed on 12.12.2019, with an addition of Rs. 21,42,857/- under the same section.

Penalty Not Maintainable When Assessment Order No Longer Exists: ITAT

Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 263

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) ruled that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961 was not maintainable since the assessment order no longer existed.

Bharat Vanmalibhai Modiya,appellant-assessee,appealed against the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2010-11.The assessee requested condonation of delay in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit. After considering the arguments and the principles from the Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. case, which favored substantial justice over technicalities in cases of non-deliberate delay, the delay was examined.

ITAT Dismisses Duplicate Appeal Due to Online and Physical Filing

Buckman Laboratories (India) P. Ltd. vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 264

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench, dismissed a duplicate appeal filed by Buckman Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd. for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

The appeal arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated July 22, 2024. The appeal had been filed against an assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act on April 22, 2021.

Non-appearance due to COVID pandemic: ITAT quashes exparte order citing sufficient ground for non-compliance

Ahmednagar Auto and Engineering Association vs ITO CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 265

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the exparte order of the Assessing Officer (AO) accepting that the COVID-19 pandemic was a reasonable and sufficient cause for the non-compliance.

Ahmednagar Auto and Engineering Association (assessee) is a non-profit association that filed Income Tax Return (ITR) and declared Nil income. The Assessing officer (AO) selected the case for complete scrutiny. Therefore, the AO issued notices to the assessee.

ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Revision Order on Alleged Bogus Purchases Citing AO’s Plausible View Backed by ITO Report and VAT Returns

Ajay Kalishchandra Bohra 1 vs Principal Commissioner of Incometax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 266

Ajay Kalishchandra Bohra (assessee) is a proprietary concern of M/s Ashutosh Industries. The assessee’s case was reopened on the basis of ITO information. The information related to survey action in the case of M/s Union Polypack. It was recorded that the accountant of Polypack made a statement that they made bogus purchases from the assessee’s proprietary concern.

The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice to the assessee in the reassessment proceedings. The assessee filed a reply with financial statements, bank account statements, VAT returns details of sales made to M/s Unique Polypack, and several other documents. Therefore, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee and passed an assessment order without making any additions.

AO adds unsecured loans as unexplained credit citing lenders’ lack of creditworthiness: ITAT confirms genuineness by copies of ITR, bank statements

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi vs ACIT Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 267

The Ahmedabad of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) confirmed the genuineness of the lenders by examining the copies of ITR, bank statements and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO).

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 unsecured loans as unexplained credit.

Technical Glitch No Ground for Rejection: ITAT Allows Charitable Trust to Refile Registration Application

Celebrate Life vs CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 268

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, allowed a charitable trust, Celebrate Life, to refile its application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act,1961. The decision came after the trust’s original application was rejected due to an inadvertent error in the section code mentioned in the application.

The case pertains to the assessment year 2022-23. The trust had applied for registration under Section 12AB, which grants tax exemptions to charitable and religious institutions. However, the application was rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) on the grounds that the trust had mistakenly filed under the wrong sub-clause.

ITAT Dismisses Appeals as Withdrawn Under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme

BRR Securities Private Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 269

In a recent order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench  dismissed two appeals for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeals were directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) New Delhi, dated May 22, 2024.

During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel,  Shilpi Jain, Chartered Accountant, informed the Tribunal that the issues under dispute in the appeals had already been settled under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Unexplained Cash Deposits: ITAT restores matter to AO

Chirag Uddin vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 270

The Agra Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )  restored the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961 for unexplained cash deposits to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for fresh reassessment.

Chirag Uddin,appellant-assessee, was reassessed by the Revenue after it found an Rs. 8,25,000/- deposit in his bank account through AIR information. The assessee did not file a return of income or explain the source of the deposit. As a result, a notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2017, and a reassessment order was passed on 30.11.2017, adding Rs. 8,25,000/- as unexplained income.

CPC Assessed Income under New Regime via Form 10IE: ITAT sets aside Order as Return Filed under Old Regime, Conditions of S. 115 BAC Not Fully Met

Akshay Nitin Malu vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 271

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the assessment order which was assessed under the new regime citing that the return was filed under the new regime and conditions under section 115 BAC not completely satisfied.

Akshay Nitin Malu (assessee) is an individual who is engaged in the business of manufacturing cloth looms. The assessee opted for the new tax regime under section 115 BAC and therefore filed form 10 IE on 18.07.2022 which is a requirement under section 115 BAC of the Income Tax Act.

CIT(A) fails to exclude COVID-19 period for Calculating Limitation: ITAT directs Recalculation of 90-Day limit starting from October 3, 2021

Bharat Shetty vs Income Tax Officer-2(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 272

The Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)[CIT(A)] to recalculate the 90 limits starting from October 3, 2021, excluding the COVID-19 period.

Bharat Shetty (assessee), whose income was assessed by the Assessing Officer(AO) amounting to Rs. 1,13,35,754, and the assessment order was passed on 19/04/2021. The AO made an addition of Rs. 63,84,964 under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Upholds ₹168.61 Crore TDS Credit Due to Form 26AS Discrepancy, Directs AO to Verify Income

DCIT vs Deendayal Port Authority Administrative Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 273

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision allowing Tax Deducted at Source(TDS) credit of ₹168.61 crore, noting discrepancies in Form 26AS due to delayed TDS payments and revised filings, and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the credit.

The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order dated 31.03.2024, for AY 2019-20, passed by the CIT(A), challenging the AO’s order  under Section 154 of the Act.In this case,Deendayal Port Authority,respondent-assessee,claimed TDS credit of ₹165.66 crore in its return, but the updated Form 26AS showed ₹167.86 crore. It filed a rectification application under Section 154, which the AO rejected on 11.08.2022, restricting the credit to the original amount.

Chhagan Bhujbal’s Agricultural Income under Scanner: ITAT directs AO to Verify Sales Records

Shri Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 274

Chhagan Bhujbal, a prominent politician from Maharashtra and a member of the 15th Legislative Assembly, is facing scrutiny over the agricultural income declared in his tax returns for the assessment year 2013-14. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently directed the Income Tax Officer (AO) to re-examine the sale records of agricultural produce after the Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the authenticity of the agricultural income shown by Bhujbal.

Bhujbal, seasoned politician , a senior figure in the Maharashtra Government and a member of the legislative assembly from Yeola, had declared agricultural income of Rs.50 lakh for the relevant financial year, primarily derived from the sale of grapes. However, the AO raised concerns about the genuineness of this income, particularly the sales transactions with wine companies.

ITAT Quashes Penalty for Under-Reporting: Holds Assessee’s Actions Bona Fide

DACSS Granites Pvt. Ltd vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 275

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bengaluru Bench, has quashed the penalty levied on assessee for under-reporting income, marking a significant decision in favor of taxpayers.

This case, which pertains to the assessment year 2017-18, saw the Tribunal overturning the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) that upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO).

‘Source of Source’ Requirement Restricted to Share Capital, Excludes Unsecured Loans and Applies Prospectively from AY 2023-24: ITAT

The Income Tax Officer vs Shri. Vastimal Bhim Raj Sancheti CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 276

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) clarified that the obligation to explain the “source of source” under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is restricted to credits like share capital and does not extend to unsecured loans received.

It explained the requirements applicable from Assessment Year (AY) 2023-24. Shri Vastimal Bhim Raj Sancheti, the assessee, had received unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 5.87 crore and Rs. 8.31 crore from Magnificent Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (MRPL) during the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively.

CIT(E)’s Order Set Aside: ITAT Remands Matter to AO for Re-examination in Light of Landmark Judgments

Brahmakshatriya Kanji Damji Hindu Sarvajanik Dharamshala Palitana vs CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 277

In a significant development, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has set aside the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT(E)) rejecting the registration application of the Brahmakshatriya Kanji Damji Hindu Sarvajanik Dharamshala Trust under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT has directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the matter in light of several landmark judgments related to the interpretation of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act.

Foundation’s S. 80G application rejected for Non-Compliance with CIT(E) Notices: ITAT remands matter for reasonable opportunity

M/s. MJN Foundation vs CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 278

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter concerning the rejection of the Foundation’s application for approval under Section 80G (v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after observing that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] denied the approval due to the foundation’s failure to comply with notices.

MJN Foundation, the assessee, is a charitable institution that was previously granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, confirming its recognized charitable activities. The foundation filed Form No. 10AB on 29.03.2024, seeking approval under Section 80G(v) for tax-deductible donations.

Taxability of Lease Premiums and Rent Collected for State Government: ITAT Rules Funds Not Taxable

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 279

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) ruled that the funds received from lease premiums and rent collected on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra are not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,appellant-assessee,is a statutory body engaged in industrial infrastructure development and registered as a charitable organization under section 12AA of the Act. It had claimed exemption under section 10(20A) until assessment year 2002-03 and later under section 11 of the Act.

Unexplained Cash Deposits of ₹14.53 Lakh: ITAT Deletes Addition u/s 68 of Income Tax Act

Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra Dawoodi Bohra Masjid Vohrawad vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 281

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) deleted the addition of ₹14.53 Lakh under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 ruling that the unexplained cash deposit was legitimate.

Dawoodi Bohra Jamat Godhra,appellant-assessee,filed its income tax return on 06/07/2017, declaring ₹1,12,09,340 after claiming an exemption under Section 11. The return was processed under Section 143(1), but the case was reopened on 30/03/2021 through a notice under Section 148. This was based on information regarding cash deposits of ₹16,50,000 made in a bank account operated by MSB Educational Institute during the demonetization period.

Notice Issued via Email Despite Specification in Form 35 Not to Receive: ITAT Remands Matter Due to Improper Notice Service

R.K. Sipani Foundation vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 283

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter due to CIT(A) failing to adhere to the explicit instructions in Form 35 where the assessee had requested not to receive notices via email. The R.K. Sipani Foundation, the assessee, raised 10 grounds of appeal against the CIT(A)’s order dated 30th July 2024.

The appeal highlighted that no notice of hearing was issued in accordance with procedural norms. The assessee had specifically mentioned in Form 35 that notices should not be sent via email, yet the CIT(A) failed to confirm whether notices were sent via any other mode.

S. 12A Application Pending Before CIT(E): ITAT Remands S. 80G Claim Rejection Matter for Concurrent Consideration

Shiv Manav Nirman Sansthan vs The CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 284

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter concerning the rejection of Shiv Manav Nirman Sansthan’s application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing that the matter be reconsidered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] alongside the assessee’s pending Section 12A application to ensure both issues are addressed.

Shiv Manav Nirman Sansthan, the assessee, applied for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to receive donations eligible for tax deductions. However, the CIT(E) rejected the application on the grounds that the assessee was not registered under Section 12A, which is a prerequisite for Section 80G approval.

Construction on Land Owned by Taxpayer’s Mother is Vaild: ITAT Grants full S. 54F Deduction, Accepts Approved Valuer’s Report

Sher Singh vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 285

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted full deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing construction on land owned by the taxpayer’s mother was valid and accepted the cost of construction as per the approved valuer’s report.

Sher Singh, a resident of Yamunanagar, filed an appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) which confirmed the Assessing Officer’s (AO) addition of Rs. 46,08,371 as capital gains on the sale of agricultural land.

Denial of TDS and Advance Tax Credits for Amalgamated Company: ITAT Directs AO to Grant Credits

Deepshikha Trading Company vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 286

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant  Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) and advance tax credits to the amalgamated company, which were denied in the assessment order.

Deepshikha Trading Company,appellant-assessee, filed its return of income on 30.09.2018, showing a total income of Rs. 16,92,420/-. The case was selected for scrutiny due to reasons like amalgamation during the year and large deductions claimed. After reviewing the reply, the income was accepted in the order under section 143(3) of the Act.

Penalty for Concealment of Income Related to Quantum Additions: ITAT Restores Matter to CIT(A)

Devendra Kumar Dubey vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 287

The Agra Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the penalty for concealment of income related to quantum additions to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication.

Devendra Kumar Dubey,appellant-assessee,filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16 on March 23, 2017, declaring a total income of ₹2,94,410. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the source of cash deposits. Despite being issued statutory notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1), there was no response. A show cause notice under Section 144 also went unanswered.

12 Lakhs TDS Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): ITAT Remands Case to AO for Verification and Reassessment

Anup Nayak vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 288

In a recent case, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the assessee’s case to the assessment officer (AO) for proper verification concerning the returns filed in the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal to the ITAT was made against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).

The assessee, Anup Nayak, was engaged in contractual business and declared an income of ₹17 lakhs for the AY 2014-15. During scrutiny conducted on the assessee, the AO found that the appellant paid a sum of ₹12 Lakhs to financers. The AO instructed the assessee to produce the necessary documents for TDS on account of interest paid to financers.

ITAT Invalidates Section 263 Revision: Questions PCIT’s Limited Scrutiny Jurisdiction under Income Tax Act

Arabinda Paul vs PCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 291

In a recent ruling decision, the Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The appeal to the ITAT was filed against PCIT’s action, alleging invalid exercise of jurisdiction.

The assessee, Arabinda Paul, filed for his income tax return for the AY 2017-18, declaring a total income ₹4 Lakhs. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits made during the AY. The assessment was concluded under Section 143(3), with the assessing officer (AO) accepting the returned income after verification of evidence.

Tech-constraints Faced By Senior Citizen: ITAT sets aside Ex- Parte Order

Mr. Anil Govind Wable vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 292

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the ex-parte order by taking into consideration the technological constraints faced by the senior citizen and remanded the case back to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT( A ) ].

The assessee, Anil Govind Wable, who is engaged in the business of civil contractor-ship, has appealed against the order passed by CIT ( A ) for the assessment year 2018-19.

Non-appearance due to communication made to former Accountant’s email: ITAT Remands matter to CIT(A)

Amod Steel Processors Spun Pipe Compound vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION:   2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 293

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [ CIT( A ) ] for non-appearance as the communication was made to the former accountant’s email id.

The assessee has appealed against the ex-parte order passed by the CIT( A ) for the assessment year ( AY ) 2014-15.

Statement Recorded u/s 133A Lacks Evidentiary Value in Absence of Summons u/s 131: ITAT

DCIT vs Ahinsa Infrastructure and Developers Limited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 295

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, lacked evidentiary value in the absence of summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act.

The revenue has appealed before the ITAT against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [ CIT( A ) ] in deleting the addition of Rs. 4.50 crores relating to income surrendered during the course of the survey operation and also the addition of Rs. 44.50 lakhs relating to unaccounted cash receipts.

ITAT slaps ₹10,000 Cost on Assessee for Failure to Justify Non-Compliance in Appellate Stage while remitting ex-parte NFAC Order

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 294

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently delivered a bittersweet decision for an Appellant, slapping a cost of  ₹10,000 on the Assessee for not adequately complying with the Appellate Authority during the appeal stage, while remitting the ex-parte order passed by the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) for fresh adjudication.

Hanubhai Devabhai Rathod filed two Income Tax Appeals bearing similar issues against the Income Tax Officer with regards to the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Bt Cotton Farmer contests ₹3.3 Crore Disallowance on Income Tax: ITAT directs CIT(A) to conduct Fresh Adjudication

Axis Agri Services vs The Dy.CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 289

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently remitted an Income Tax matter filed by a Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) Cotton farmer contesting an Income Tax disallowance of a cumulative ₹3.3 Crores on account of exempt income.

The Income Tax Appeal was filed before ITAT by Axis Agri Services, a partnership firm engaged in agricultural activities, specifically in the growing of hybrid seeds for Bt cotton, a genetically modified pest resistant cotton plant that produces an insecticide to combat bollworm. Axis Agri claimed income tax exemptions on agricultural income under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21.

Unexplained Investment of ₹1.65 Crore: ITAT Restores Matter Back to AO for Fresh Verification

Deepa Shinde A/1406 vs Income Tax Officer 22(1)(6) Piramal Chambers CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 282

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter of unexplained investment of ₹1.65 crore back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification. Deepa Shinde,appellant-assessee,did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2014-15.

The AO found that the assessee had purchased immovable property worth Rs. 5,65,00,000/- in the financial year 2013-14. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 24.03.2021, but the assessee did not respond.

ITAT Dismisses Appeal after Assessee Opts for Settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024

Amit Kumar Kajaria vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 290

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) bench at Kolkata dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as the bench observed that the assessee had opted for Settlement Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2024.

In this case, the assessee, the assessee, Amit Kumar Kajaria, HUF, has appealed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC ), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

ITAT Rules Reassessment Invalid for Non-Application of Mind in Approval Process u/s 151

Anil Kumar Jain vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 300

In a recent case, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that reassessing the assessee’s account was invalid. The appeal was made against an order made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which started the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

The assessee, Anil Kumar Jain, declared an income of ₹ 81 Lakhs for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. A search and seizure action under Section 132 targeted a group to which the assessee was linked and, based on the assessing officer’s (AO) findings, reopened the assessment under Section 147, issuing notice under

Unexplained ₹49.50 Lakh Cash Deposit: ITAT Sends Case back to AO for Verification

Shri Gangaiah Nagaraju vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 310

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case involving an unexplained cash deposit of ₹49.50 lakh to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for verification.

Gangaiah Nagaraju,appellant-assessee, was found to have made a cash deposit of Rs.49,45,800 and received contract income of Rs.3,03,315, with tax deducted at source. A notice under section 148 was issued on 29.3.2019 due to the assessee’s failure to file a return.

Additional Income declared in Survey considered as Business Income not Charged u/s 68, 69A: ITAT

Shri Alok Vijawat vs The PCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 313

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that additional income declared in the survey was considered business income and not charged under Sections 69 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Alok Vijawat (assessee), place was surveyed by the department on 16.01.2019 and identified disclosed income of Rs. 76,00,000. The assessee filed an Income Tax Return ( ITR ) on 31.10.2019 declaring a total income of Rs. 83,70,380. The assessee disclosed the additional income of Rs. 76,00,000 which was found during the survey as business income.

ITAT rules against S.80P Income Tax Exemptions for Cooperative Societies on Interest from Nationalized Banks: ITAT

Balwa Group Coop Society vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 314

In a noteworthy ruling, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that cooperative societies are not eligible to avail tax exemptions under Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on interest income received from deposits held with nationalized banks.

In an income tax appeal filed by Balwa Group Coop Society (Balwa Society), the society contested an assessment order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 averring the fault of the Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) in making addition of ₹18,86,277 on account of interest income received from nationalized banks.

Relief to Harry Potter Publisher: ITAT Remits Transfer Pricing and Corporate Tax matter to verify Confirmations and Explanations

Bloomsbury Publishing India Private Ltd. vs Addl.CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 315

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently remitted a matter regarding discrepancies in transfer pricing and corporate tax of UK-origin publishing giant Bloomsbury Publishing India Private Ltd. ( Bloomsbury ), observing the need for additional verification and confirmations adduced by the Assessee to render a decision right in law.

An Income Tax Appeal was filed by Bloomsbury challenging an assessment against tax additions on transfer pricing adjustments and increase in sundry creditors, passed on the basis of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)/ TPO with regards to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.

ITAT Condones Delay of 107 Days in Filing Appeal Due to Assessee’s Health Issues and Covid-19 Pandemic

Divyesh Devabhai Pampania vs The I.T.O CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 317

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, has condoned a delay of 107 days in filing an appeal by an assessee, Divyesh Devabhai Pampania, citing health complications and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of natural justice and fair play in tax proceedings.

The case pertains to the assessment year 2015-16, where the assessee had filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to a delay of 184 days in filing, refusing to condone the delay despite the assessee’s explanations.

Apartment Owners Association Gets Second Chance: ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A) Order due to Technical Glitch

Elegant Embassy III Apartment Owners Association VS The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 316

In a significant relief to an apartment owners association, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore Bench, has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) CIT( A ) and granted the association a second chance to present its case.

The ITAT’s decision came in response to a 367-day delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to a technical glitch in updating the association’s email ID in the Income Tax records.

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/apartment-owners-association-gets-second-chance-itat-sets-aside-cita-order-due-to-technical-glitch/485125/

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