Tejas C Joshi vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 101

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 1.28 crore under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of Income Tax Act,1961 on account of stamp duty value difference in a property purchase.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had addressed all objections, including the 15% variation claim, which was not applicable under the law. It upheld the addition of Rs.1,28,54,000/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), agreeing with the CIT(A)’s decision.

Shamkant GajmalDesale vs TheITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 102

The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) reduced the disallowance of Rs. 25.85 lakh worth of purchases, originally made due to lack of documentation, to 12.5%. Shamkant Gajmal Desale,appellant-assessee,filed his return for the assessment year 2008-09, declaring an income of Rs. 1,05,387. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), but the assessee did not respond.

As the assessee did not provide supporting evidence for claiming profit at 8%, the tribunal decided to reduce the disallowance to 12.5%. The addition of Rs. 3,23,220 was confirmed, and the remaining addition was deleted. The ground was partly allowed.

2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 103

The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, challenging the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)’s rejection of the refund claim and rectification application, stating that the rejection was not an appealable order under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The appellate tribunal explained that such a response was not appealable under Section 253 of the Act, which specifies the types of orders that can be challenged before the tribunal. As a result, the ITAT dismissed the appeal as infructuous and did not address the grounds raised by the assessee.

Mahendrakumar Prahladbhai VsITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 104

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the time gap between cash withdrawals and deposits was insufficient to treat the amount as undisclosed income under Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench referred to similar cases, such as Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker, Ajit Bapu Satam, Jaspal Singh Sehgal, and Smt. Krishna Agarwal, where the courts ruled that if the assessee could prove that the withdrawn cash was not used elsewhere, it could not be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act.

Jehan Percy Variava Vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 106

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the income obtained from agriculture and reduced additions made by the Assessing officer to 2 Lakhs in order to prevent revenue loss.

The single bench member comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) observed that the assessee had sufficient agricultural income to substantiate cash deposits. Therefore, the tribunal held that to delete the addition of Rs. 24 lakhs made by the AO. However, in order to prevent revenue loss, the tribunal also made an addition of Rs. 2 lakhs and directed the AO to tax at a normal rate. The appeal was partly allowed.

Vachaspati Sharma vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 107

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench has carefully examined the complex issue of taxability of interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and held that interest on compensation on acquisition of agricultural land will be treated as Income from other sources.

The Two member Bench comprised of Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member) and Sifa Ur Rahman (Accountant Member) ultimately concluded that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is taxable as income from other sources. The interest of Rs. 2,39,47,720 (50% of the total interest received) would be taxable under "Income from Other Sources", with a 50% deduction allowed.

Prarthana Gems vsThe DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 108

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Surat Bench, quashed the disallowance of interest on an unsecured loan, which had already been confirmed as genuine by the assessee.

Two member Bench comprised of Pawan Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Bijayananda Pruseth ( Accountant Member ) concluded by setting aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the additions under both Section 68 and the disallowance of interest. This ruling reflects the importance of documenting and proving the genuineness of financial transactions, especially in cases involving unsecured loans. In Conclusion, the appeal of Prarthana Gems was allowed.

Prarthana Gems vsThe DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 108

The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Surat has directed the Assessing Officer ( AO ) to delete additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to a loan of Rs. 25,00,000 received by Prarthana Gems, a Surat-based firm.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, granting relief by deleting the additions and allowing the deduction of interest paid on the loan. This ruling emphasizes the importance of providing adequate documentation and evidence to establish the genuineness of loans and the creditworthiness of lenders in such cases

MaheshbhaiNagjibhai Desai VsIncome-Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 109

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad bench, has remanded a case back to the Assessing Officer ( AO ) for further examination, allowing the assessee to furnish the necessary details regarding unexplained investments.

The Tribunal’s order has been hailed as a fair decision, ensuring that the appellant gets another opportunity to substantiate his case. The case will now be heard afresh by the Assessing Officer, who is expected to pass a de novo order after evaluating the additional documents. The appeal has been allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer for further consideration

Seema Ajay Rankavs DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 110

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) orders rehearing and imposed ₹10,000 on Revenue as Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] dismisses appeal as time-barred despite extended deadline.

It directed the CIT(A), NFAC, to reconsider the appeal on merits, give a proper hearing, and pass an order within three months. The bench also imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the Revenue for its casual approach. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Interest Income classified as Business Income: ITAT grants allowance of Related Expenses [Read Order]

Samir Networks LLPVS The ACITCircle-4(1)91) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 112

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that interest income earned by the assessee should be classified as business income, granting the allowance of related expenses. Samir Networks LLP, appellant-assessee,reported interest income of Rs. 9,96,855 under “income from business and profession” and claimed expenses of Rs. 1,05,20,522, resulting in a net loss.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (AccountantMember) therefore ruled that the interest income should be treated as business income, and the related expenses should be allowed. The AO was directed to follow this decision. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Rotary International District3054 vs The CIT(Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 113

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)[CIT(E)]’s denial of registration to a trust engaged in fund-raising activities and granted registration under Section 12AB of Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member ) concluded that the CIT(E)'s order denying registration and citing violations under Section 12AB(4) was incorrect. It set aside the order and directed the CIT(E) to grant the registration under Section 12AB.

Manan Kiritbhai ShahvsIncome-Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 114

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, partly allowed the appeal filed by assessee, in relation to the unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. Tribunal addressed a significant issue involving unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961.

Thus, the appeal was partly allowed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to revise the assessment to grant the benefit of Rs. 8 lakhs, providing some relief to the Assessee in the matter of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.

Ranjeet Kumar Budhiavs DCIT CPC CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 115

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ranchi Bench has directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) to reconsider the deduction claim under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had overlooked the latest Supreme Court decision, which could potentially affect the case outcome. As a result, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, with instructions to consider the Supreme Court’s decision in the Checkmate Services case and pass a fresh order accordingly.

Kamlesh D. Pate vs TheACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 116

Recently, the Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), allowed the appeal of a senior citizen from Telangana, challenging the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), directing the CIT(A) to reconsider the matter along with a pending appeal related to the same assessment year.

Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and instructed that the appeal be decided together with the pending appeal within four months. In Conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter is now remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

Dinesh Ramanbhai Patelvs IncomeTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 117

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh review after addressing the ex-parte dismissal and the addition of Rs. 1.55 Crore as unexplained investment.

The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) directed the case to be sent back to the AO for a fresh review, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. If the assessee does not comply with the notices, the AO may pass appropriate orders based on the available evidence. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Manish Chiranjilal JainvsIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 118

In a recent ruling by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, the assessee, Manish Chiranjilal Jain, received partial relief in his appeal concerning the assessment for the financial year 2018-19. The Tribunal set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of interest expenses and partly sustained the disallowance concerning household expenses.

In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal, granting relief to the assessee by deleting the interest expense addition and partially reducing the household expenses disallowance

Raj Kumar Gupta vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 119

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ranchi Bench, has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) and directed the reassessment of the long-term capital gain (LTCG) claim for the assessment year 2014-15. The tribunal’s decision came after it found that new evidence submitted by the assessee had not been considered during the earlier proceedings.

Rajeshbhai MohanbhaiPrajapativs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 121

The tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to conduct a fresh assessment, ensuring the assessee receives a fair opportunity to present its case. It warned the assessee to cooperate fully in future proceedings or face adverse consequences. The remand offers the assessee a chance to present its case afresh, albeit at the cost of a financial penalty and the burden of stricter scrutiny in the next round of proceedings.

Dushyant M. Pandya VsThe DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 123

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled an agriculturist could not be held liable for the non-response of a third party to a tax notice. The tribunal confirmed that the cash deposit during the demonetization period was agricultural income supported by sale bills and land records.

The tribunal observed that the rejection of the claim based on the third party’s non-response was unjust and that the assessee could not be penalized for the actions of another party. The tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 10,00,000 addition citing the assessee sufficiently proven that the cash deposit originated from the sale of agricultural produce. The appeal was allowed.

Smt. Santra vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 124

The Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), in a recent case, remanded the case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [CIT(A)], providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case on merit again.

The ITAT, which consists of Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member) and Narinder Kumar (Judicial Member), remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh proceedings on merits. The tribunal imposed a cost of ₹3,000 on the assessee, directing her to deposit the amount in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund before the reman proceedings start. As a result the appeal was allowed.

Titan Company LimitedvsAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 125

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) delivered a setback to Titan and upheld the legality of reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench, comprising of SS Viswanethra Ravi ( Judicial Member ) and Amitabh Shukla ( Accountant Member ) upheld the decision of CIT( A ) and dismissed the ground raised by teh assessee challenging the legality of reopening assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Titan Company LimitedvsAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 125

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh examination concerning the write-off of loans amounting to Rs. 29.52 crore advanced by the assessee to its overseas associated enterprise ( AE ), Titan International Holdings BV (TIHBV) due to additional evidence brought by the assessee.

The ITAT remitted the disallowance of loans written off by the assessee to TIHBV back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing a detailed reassessment in accordance with the law and a speaking order.The ITAT, comprising SS Viswanethra Ravi ( Judicial Member ) and Amitabh Shukla ( Accountant Member ) remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh examination.

Dy. Commissioner ofIncome Taxvs M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 126

The Nagpur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the addition of Rs. 6.58 crore for the previous year, finding the investment transactions of two out of seven companies to be genuine.

ITAT observed that no addition for that year can arise since the amount was not received in the previous year relevant to AY 2012–13 as an advance against property. The bench held that the share premiums were duly accounted for and made through proper banking channels, and thus the transactions were genuine. The ITAT, comprising V. Durga Rao ( Judicial Member ) and K.M. Roy ( Accountant Member ) dismissed the revenue’s appeal.

CONFEDERATION OFBAHADURGARHINDUSTRIES vs CIT EXEMPTIONS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 127

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter concerning the rejection of a society’s application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] did not consider the replies and directed a proper hearing to reassess the matter.

The tribunal explained the need for a fair reassessment and directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the application ruling that society is given sufficient opportunities to address the issues raised. The tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

Dubey Ravi Arunkumarvs TheIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 128

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a matter for fresh adjudication concerning a delay in filing an appeal due to a change of address and non-receipt of an assessment order citing principles of natural justice.

The tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO directing a fresh adjudication after considering the evidence presented by the assessee. The tribunal also ordered the assessee to contribute Rs. 2,000 to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within three weeks as a gesture of responsibility.

Yuwam EducationPrivate Ltd vsThe DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 129

In a recent ruling, the Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case back to the assessing officer (AO), asserting the need for a detailed reassessment of income tax returns filed by the assessee. The assessee, Yuwam Education Pvt Ltd, a Jaipur-based coaching institute, faced scrutiny under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act.

The tribunal, which consisted of Narinder Kumar (Judicial Member) and Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai(Accountant Member), ordered a fresh assessment of the books. It imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 on the assessee to be paid to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund and to produce the receipt of the above cost deposit before the AO. As a result, the tribunal allowed the appeal.

Gautam Keshavrao Lohevs ThePCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 132

Gautam Keshavrao Lohe,appellant-assessee,filed an appeal on 23.04.2024 against the revision order dated 19.02.2024, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ), Vadodara-1. The appeal pertained to an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member ) noted the assessee’s continued non-compliance and lack of response, suggesting the matter could not proceed further due to the assessee’s failure to rectify the identified issues or participate in the appeal process.

Chandra Bali Singh vsIncome TaxOfficer-3(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 134

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Allahabad Bench, quashed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the quantum addition case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration.

Regarding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the ITAT ruled that it could not be sustained as the quantum addition was being reconsidered.

Two member Bench Comprised of Subhash Malguria (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Aswathi (Accountant Member) quashed the penalty but allowed the AO to initiate fresh proceedings if the addition was upheld in reassessment.

Ariana CharitableTrust vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 136

In a recent order, the Allahabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the tax liability imposed for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice.

The case stemmed from the denial of expenditure claims by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ariana Charitable Trust, assessee, running a school up to the 8th standard, reported total receipts of Rs.41,68,597 against an expenditure of Rs.48,07,340. However, the AO treated the entire receipt as taxable income, disregarding the expenditure claims.

Buckeye Trust vsPCIT-2 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 137

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed an appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT )’s order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

The two-member bench consistingof Prashant Maharishi ( Vice President ) and Prakash Chand Yadav ( JudicialMember ) upheld the PCIT’s order, which invoked Section 263 of the Income TaxAct, asserting that the AO’s lack of inquiry into key issues made the originalassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue and as a result theappeal filed by the trust was dismissed.

M/s. Madurai PowerCorporationPvt. 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.

The two-member bench comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) and Jagadish (Accountant Member) held that the AO enquired about the claim of less depreciation and accepted the reply of the assessee. The tribunal noted that the AO acted after taking inquiry and applied his mind.

Therefore, the tribunal held that it cannot be said that the AO has erred in passing the reassessment order and held that the AO has taken a plausible view.Therefore, the bench quashed the order of PCIT stating that it is unsustainable in law. Thereby, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

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.

The tribunal comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) accepted the contention of the assessee's counsel and decided in the favour of the assessee. Therefore, the tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10(10B) of the act. Thereby the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Suresh vs The IncomeTax 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 appellate order noted that neither during the assessment nor during the appeal could the assessee validate his income computation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench found no infirmity in the lower authorities’ conclusions, dismissing the appeal and affirming the addition of ₹13.04 lakh. The Chennai ITAT thus directed income estimation at 8% of gross receipts for Suresh under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in income tax assessments.

Bundelkhand IspatMelting vsIncome-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.

In conclusion, the appeals in ITA No. 17 and ITA No. 18 have been allowed for statistical purposes, with both parties instructed to resolve the issues and present the matter again for proper adjudication.

Girraj Cold StoragePvt. Ltd vsIncome-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.

In conclusion, Girraj Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. succeeded in its appeal before the ITAT, which ruled that the company’s interest-free advances to farmers were in line with business expediency and therefore should not result in the disallowance of the interest expenses.,

Aahvan AgenciesLimited VSDeputy 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 bench referred to the judgement of the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. ACIT, where it was ruled that an unclear or omnibus notice suffers from vagueness and is legally invalid. The ITAT comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) quashed the penalty and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.

Vinodchandra DahyabhaiDarji vsIncome 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 bench, noting that the opportunity of being heard was not granted to the assessee, the matter to the file of CIT( A ) and directed the CIT( A ) to give the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The bench also directed the CIT( A ) to obtain a receipt for the assessee's payment of Rs. 5000 to the "Prime Minister's National Relief Fund."

Shree SharvashramJagrutiSansthan 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 ITAT, comprising Judicial Member Siddhartha Nautiyal and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, set aside the ex-parte order and restored it to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo consideration. It also directed the CIT(E ) to give the assessee a due opportunity to present its case.

Jivarajbhai RamabhaiChaudharyPatel 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.

A single member bench comprising Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) found that the CIT(A) had improperly accepted part of the cash book while rejecting the rest without proper justification. It ruled that either the entire cash book should have been accepted or rejected, and therefore, the addition to the assessee’s income was unjustified. The appeal was allowed.

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.

The tribunal was provided with an agreement dated 14.08.2009, detailing the acquisition of the business, including assets and liabilities for Rs. 1,43,62,000/-. Given the new information, the bench concluded that the expenses of Rs. 4,81,477/- related to sales promotion were legitimate business expenses and allowed the deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.

AbdulmannanMohammedkasadBastawala 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 bench observed that the assessee had neither benefitted from the transactions nor shown any intent to evade taxes. The bench, comprising Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice President ) and Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Memebr ) held that the credit card of the assessee was misused by a friend of him, who was now absconding. The bench quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the IncomeTax 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.

Given the assessee's explanation, the tribunal decided to grant an opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A). The appeal was restored, the delay was condoned, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside for a fresh hearing. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

DCIT vs M/s. AllsecTechnologiesLimited

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.

The tribunal referred to the Faizan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. case which held that such payments were not fees for technical services and did not attract TDS under Section 195. So, the tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)’s decision. The revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

PNC SPSCPL (JV) vsDCIT (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 ITAT noted that the department has access to digital data and can easily verify the contentions of the assessee using technology. The Tribunal observed that this would have saved the assessee and the authorities from the hassle of litigation. In Conclusion,the appeal was allowed,subject to directions.

ITO vs M/s. PriyaEstateDevelopers 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.

The tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment directing the AO to independently determine the FMV of shares and provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate its case. The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

Ritika Jain vsIncome-taxOfficer 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 Tribunal, therefore, directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate it on merits. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the CIT(A) instructed to provide a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case. The assessee's appeal has been partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the CIT(A) required to consider the matter in accordance with the law.

Jain Steel CorporationvsIncome-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 ITAT further noted that the failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice by not granting the adjournment request and dismissing the appeal ex-parte violated the procedural fairness expected in tax proceedings. As a result, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, giving both parties a fair opportunity to present their case.

AO Adds based on Mobile Phone Image Indicating Higher Sale Consideration: ITAT Deletes due to Absence of Corroborative Evidence

ACIT vs ShriChandrasekaranJoseph 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.

The tribunal ruled that the initial burden of proof, discharged by the assessee through plausible explanations and seller confirmations was not effectively countered by the AO. The tribunal held that additions under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, require concrete evidence of unexplained investments and cannot be sustained on presumptions.

M/s. RavikumarDistilleriesLimited 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.

Mrs. Karunakaran Leela vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 215

The ChennaiBench 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.

The tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO directing a fresh consideration of the issue with a specific opportunity provided to the assessee to substantiate the creditworthiness of the creditors. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

The tribunal explained that tax assessments should be grounded in reasonable and substantial evidence rather than arbitrary estimations. So, the tribunal ordered the deletion of the disallowed amount and allowed the appeal in full.

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.

The tribunal comprising Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000 for the non-appearance of the assessee. The tribunal also accepted the prayer of the assessee and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). Thereby, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

The bench comprising R. K. Panda (Vice President) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) held that the CIT(A) was erred in not condoning the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal. The tribunal also set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) in the interest of Justice. The tribunal also directed the assessee to produce additional documents without taking unnecessary adjournment. Thereby partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

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.

Two Member Bench composed of M S Kavitha Rajagopal ( Judicial Member ) Omkareshwara Chidhara ( Accountant Member ) remitted the case back to the AO with specific instructions to consider the new evidence submitted before the ITAT and provide the appellant with an opportunity to explain his case. The case is now remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law

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 ITAT’s ruling is significant as it reinforces the principle that amendments introduced through the Finance Act 2022 to Section 14A apply prospectively from the Assessment Year 2022-23 onwards. In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) and granting relief to Welspun Steel Limited.

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.

Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A), which included the addition of Rs. 72,14,060 to the assessee's income and the capital gains tax levied. The appeal was allowed, as the authorities failed to properly assess the evidence and apply the correct legal principles.

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 said that denying the right to cross-examine and relying on unverified and retracted statements violates the principles of natural justice. The tribunal also dismissed the revenue’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence and declined to sustain the addition based on vague allegations.

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.

The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal ( Judicial Member ) and Annapurna Gupta ( Accountant Member ) further analyzed whether the services "made available" technology to the recipients as required by the India-Netherlands tax treaty. It concluded that the services did not impart technology or enable the recipients to perform the services independently in the future.

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.

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.

The tribunal explained that the reassessment should provide the assessee with a fair opportunity and advised him to cooperate fully to avoid unnecessary delays. The tribunal treated the appeal as allowed for statistical purposes

ITAT Directs Reassessment of Ex-Parte Dismissal u/s 250 of Income Tax Act: Criticizes Negligence of Non-Compliance of Taxpayers

Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. vsThe 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 two-member bench consisting of Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with explicit instructions to provide a fair hearing and decide on the issues on merit.

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.

Mumbai ITAT comprising Justice ( Retd.) C.V. Bhadang ( President ) and B. R Baskaran ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside teh order od CIT( A ). The bench directed the AO to delete the addition of alleged bogus purchases made in both the years.

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.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

Khidmat-E-Khalq Charitable Trustvs 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).

In light of the observations, the Surat ITAT restored the application back to the file of the CIT(E), directing the Commissioner to reconsider the application in terms of Circular No. 7/2024 after providing opportunity for hearing and to file additional submissions or evidences, if any.

Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta vsDeputy 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.

As a result, the tribunal restored the legal ground concerning Assessment Year 2006-07 to the file of the CIT(A) for further scrutiny and decision. The decision was made forstatistical purposes.

Kiwans Farsuram Bhamwala vs TheITO 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.

However, observing the principles of natural justice, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the file of jurisdictional AO with a direction to pass de novo assessment order after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Bench also issued a note of warning to the Assessee to be highly vigilant and diligent during the proceedings and to not seek adjournment without valid reasons.

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 tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication directing the AO to provide the appellants with sufficient opportunity to furnish evidence and participate in the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Salaam Social Medical VSCommissioner 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.

This ruling highlights the importance of filing the correct forms for tax-exempt status and registration, particularly for non-profit organizations seeking to avail of the benefits under Sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The ACIT vs M/s. Vardha InfraLtd. 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 CIT(A) had also referred to the tribunal’s decision for AY 2016–17, where no additional disallowance was made for delayed TDS payments. Relying on these judicial pronouncements, the CIT(A) directed the deletion of the addition. The revenue failed to present any binding precedent to counter these findings, and the ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal as without merit.

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 tribunal found no justification on the part of the lower authorities in treating the deposits made by the assessee, arising from the sales of opening stock, as income from undisclosed sources. The tribunal held that the impugned addition of Rs. 32 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was unsustainable and ordered its deletion.

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.

The ITAT Bench comprised of Sandeep Singh Karhail ( Judicial Member ) and Omkareshwar Chidara ( Accountant Member ), while dismissing the appeal, cited several key judicial precedents supporting the PCIT’s action. These included the Supreme Court's decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. and Max India Ltd., which set the precedent that an order can be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue when it fails to conduct proper inquiries.

The Capital VS The DeputyDirector 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.

In conclusion, the ITAT's ruling has allowed Pfizer's claim for deductions under Section 43B and set aside the CPC's adjustments, ensuring that the company’s tax liability is re-evaluated in accordance with the law. The case highlights the importance of following due process in tax assessments and offers a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Samarth RaghuveerSahakariPatsanstha 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 ITAT’s ruling solidifies the status of cooperative credit societies as eligible for deductions under Section 80P, ensuring that they can continue to benefit from tax exemptions for income earned through their members and from cooperative banks.

Anantrai Vithalbhai Parmar vsCommissioner 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 tribunal consisting of Suchitra Kamble, the judicial member, observed that the reason given by the assessee for non-representing his case appears to be done in good faith and that the tribunal finds it fit to remand the case back to the file of the assessing officer for proper adjudication of the issues, after taking cognisance of the evidence filed by the assessee before the AO. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed.

Ramchandra Keshav and Company VSCIT(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.