Annual Income Tax Case Digest: ITAT Decisions 2025 [Part II]

ITO- 19(3)(1) 405 vs ShivsahyadriSahakariPathpedhi 118 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 243

In a significant decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has ruled in favor of co-operative societies, allowing them to claim tax deductions under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai’s ruling solidifies the stance that co-operative societies and co-operative banks are both entitled to the benefits under Section 80P(2)(d), providing much-needed clarity and relief to the co-operative sector.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs Adarsh Foundation CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 244

Mohamedistiyak Mohamediqbal Patel vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 245

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently deleted an income tax addition of ₹48,48,356, observing that the concerned Assessing Officer (AO) and precursory Commissioner of Income Taxes (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) had failed to adduce any specific information and evidence to incriminate the Assessee demonstrating the Assessee’s possession of unexplained income.

A two-member Bench of Pawan Singh, Judicial Member and Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member observed that the Assessee had indeed made penny stock purchase of ₹66,446.52 and sold them on the same day for a profit of ₹3,207.07 which was offered for tax.

Further noting that the AO and CIT(A) have claimed to rely on information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, but failed to refer the specific information and evidence in their respective reports and judgment, the ITAT Bench proceeded to delete the addition of unexplained income at ₹48,48,356.

Abhaykumar Sevantilal vs ACIT Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 246

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the interest expenses of the assessee on alleged fund misuse citing that lack of nexus between borrowed funds and personal investments.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the proportionate disallowance of interest expenses.

Therefore, the tribunal ruled the addition as unjustified and deleted the addition of the interest expenses. Thereby the appeal was partly allowed.

Abhinandan Gramin Bigar vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 247

The Pune Bench of Income Tax appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that interest income from Business investment earned by Cooperative Society is eligible for deduction under section 80(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act.

The tribunal also noted that the ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Yashwant Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit held that the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act.

The bench comprising Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) and Dr. Dipak P. Ripote (Accountant Member) held that the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the act.

Therefore, the tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction. Thereby, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Ananvaya Nyasah VS The CIT-Exemption CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 249

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), has granted the trust the opportunity to rectify defects in Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with regard to registration applications. In this case, the assessee, Ananvaya Nyasah, a Jaipur-based trust, had filed appeals challenging the CIT(E)’s rejection of its applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal, comprising Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai ( Accountant Member ) and Sudhir Pareek ( Judicial Member), ruled in favor of the trust, setting aside the order of [CIT(E)] and directing a reconsideration of the application. The ITAT allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.

BPS Mineral ExportsPvt. 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/-.

It noted that while the CIT(A) questioned the prudence of granting interest-free advances, the evidence, including the Tax Audit Report and financial statements, showed no diversion of funds. Relying on the decisions in CIT vs. Cargill Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. and S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal held the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to be unjustified.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed

Dr. C J Desai AndJaswantiben 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.

M/s. Akshaya BuildersDevelopers 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 bench considered the company’s plea that the delay was due to partner disputes and condoned the delay. The ITAT also reached a conclusion that the assesee had not taken the tax compliance as a vigilant citizen and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 for each assessment year, which the firm was instructed to deposit under the “Others” category and submit proof to the AO. The bench, comprising Shri Prakash Chand Yadav ( Judicial Member ) and Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Accountant Member ) remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the firm with a final opportunity to present and stated that if the firm fails to cooperate during the remand proceedings, no further leniency will be granted.

Income Tax Officer vsM/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 two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Narendra P.Sinha (Accountant Member) noting the quantum proceedings were decided in favor of the assessee, held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained.

In short,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed

M/s. Bosch AutomotiveElectronics 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 ITAT remanded the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, instructing a detailed review and an opportunity for the assessee to present additional evidence.

The ITAT comprising Laxmi Prasad Sahu ( Judicial Member) and Prakash Chand Yadav ( Account Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.

Rajeshbhai NaranbhaiPatel 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.

Taking into account confirmation from the seller farmers that the Assessee had directly purchased agricultural produce from them, the Bench found no infirmity with the CIT(A) order, while affirming that gross of earlier years may be used to determine taxable income of an Assessee when the circumstances and transactions are of similar nature.

Shri Alok Dave vs TheIncome 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 bench, comprising Vikas Ashwathy ( Judicial Member ) and Naveen Chandra ( Accountant Member ) observed that the authorities had failed to uphold basic principles of natural justice by not giving the assessee a reasonable chance to present his case. The bench remanded the case and directed the assessing officer to re-examine the matter, ensuring that the assessee is given a fair opportunity to submit all relevant documents and clarifications.

The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

The tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to verify the documents and check if the income from fees had already been included in the parent trust’s return, instructing the officer to decide the issue based on merit. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

D S Mittle Charities15/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.

However, the assessee’s counsel assured that all queries would be addressed if given an opportunity. Considering this, the tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matters for reconsideration. It directed the CIT(E) to review the applications on their merits after providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to present its case. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome 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.

In short,the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

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 two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) reviewed the relevant material and found that the AO did not account for purchases and direct expenses corresponding to sales of Rs. 12,83,75,566/-. The undervaluation of closing stock was unjustified, as the books of accounts were not rejected but deemed unreliable. The AO had contradicted himself by accepting the books for the addition of Rs. 12,83,75,566/-.

In short,the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

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.

It noted that while the CIT(A) questioned the prudence of granting interest-free advances, the evidence, including the Tax Audit Report and financial statements, showed no diversion of funds. Relying on the decisions in CIT vs. Cargill Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. and S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal held the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to be unjustified.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

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).

The two member bench comprising Dr B.R.R Kumar (Vice- President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) stated that the AO could not disregard these objections and apply the deeming provisions without due consideration. It referenced the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches in Amar Shiv Construction Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT and Jayshree Kothari vs. ITO, which held that such actions by the AO were not sustainable.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

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.

The two member bench comprising Sandeep Gosain(Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal(Accountant Member) after hearing both parties and reviewing the records, found that the assessment order for the year had been quashed by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT. Since the assessment order was no longer valid, the penalty based on it also had to be quashed. As the assessment, which was the basis for the penalty, no longer existed, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer(AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) was quashed.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

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 dismissal of this appeal serves as a reminder of the need for careful and accurate submission of legal documents in tax-related matters.

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

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

Therefore, the tribunal held that the non-compliance to the notices due to the covid period was sufficient grounds and directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence. Thereby, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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 tribunal observed that the AO made necessary inquiries during the assessment and satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. The tribunal further observed that the AO considered the report of the ITO for assessment. Therefore, the tribunal held that the PCIT’s revisional order was not sustainable. The tribunal also set aside the PCIT’s order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

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).

The tribunal confirmed the genuineness of the lenders considering the ITR copies and bank statements. The tribunal also deleted the additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax act.

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.

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.

This decision highlights the growing impact of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme in resolving tax disputes, allowing taxpayers to resolve their issues swiftly and avoid prolonged litigation. It is expected that many taxpayers will continue to utilize this scheme to settle their disputes in the coming months

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.

Since the tribunal had remanded the quantum additions, it was decided that the penalty issue under section 271(1)(c) should also be restored to the AO for fresh determination, considering the reassessment outcome and additional evidence. Proper opportunities were to be given to both parties. The merits of the case were not addressed.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

Therefore, the tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee’s counsel and observed that the CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order of CPC. The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A). Thereby, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

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.

The tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to recalculate the limitation period for filing the appeal. The tribunal further directed that the appeal should be decided on merits with a reasonable opportunity to be given to the assessee.

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 tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal as infructuous, and the AO was directed to verify the Form 26AS and grant the TDS credit of ₹168.61 crore, ensuring the corresponding revenue was included in the total income.

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.

The ITAT Two Member Bench comprised of Amit Shukla(Judicial Member) and Girish Agarwal (Accountant Member), while agreeing with the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), found that there was insufficient proof to conclusively validate the sales figures for some of the parties involved. As a result, the matter was remanded back to the AO for further investigation.

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.

The Tribunal noted that these actions were in line with the law and should not be construed as under-reporting or mis-reporting of income. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had paid due taxes and filed the necessary forms, albeit belatedly, which the Tribunal deemed a procedural irregularity rather than a violation. the ITAT quashed the penalty, providing relief to the assessee.

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.

The tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and ruling that no further intervention was needed.

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.

In conclusion, the ITAT’s decision marks a crucial step in interpreting the tax laws for charitable and religious trusts, ensuring that the registration process under Section 12A aligns with established legal precedents.

The Trust's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter to be revisited by the CIT(E) in accordance with the directions issued by the ITAT.

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.

The tribunal warned that the foundation must cooperate with the proceedings, and any further non-compliance would result in no leniency being granted. The case was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

The CIT(E) had directed the AO to verify the Section 11 exemption, but this had already been examined by the ITAT. The appellate tribunal cited case law, stating Section 263 cannot be invoked solely based on a change of opinion. Thus, it quashed the revisional order under Section 263 of the Act.

In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

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.

The two member bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) concluded that the cash deposit of ₹14,53,000 was legitimate and supported by proper documentation. It held the addition under Section 68 unsustainable and directed its deletion, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.

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.

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.

The tribunal explained the importance of providing due opportunities to the assessee for a fair hearing. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merit and per the law, ensuring both issues are resolved simultaneously. The tribunal directed the CIT(E) to give the assessee adequate opportunities to address all concerns and ruled that the appeal be allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

The ITAT directed the acceptance of the construction cost as Rs. 55,82,750 based on the approved valuer’s report and deleted the addition made by the AO. The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee and allowed the appeal.

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.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) ruled in favor of the assessee, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and directed the AO to allow the TDS credit of Rs. 1,23,331/- and advance tax credit of Rs. 1,75,000/- while assessing the income of the amalgamated company.

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.

It further noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the penalty appeal without considering the tribunal’s earlier order regarding the quantum additions. To ensure fairness, the appellate tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider the revised order on quantum additions and give both parties a proper opportunity to be heard. No comments were made on the merits of the case. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

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 ITAT, consisting of Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member), set aside the orders of CIT(A) and A. It directed the AO to conduct a fresh assessment and required the assessee to provide all relevant documents as required by the AO for such an evaluation. As a result, the appeal was allowed.

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 ITAT, consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Chaoubey (Judicial Member), concluded that the PCIT’s order under Section 263 was invalid and quashed. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed

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 ITAT, comprising R.K. Panda ( Vice President ) and Vinay Bhamore ( Judicial Member ) allowed all the grounds raised by the assessee for statistical purposes. The assessee was represented by Shri Ravindra S. Darekar and Shri Prasad S. Bhandari and the Revenue by Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

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 bench accepted the submissions made by the assessee that the notices were sent to the e-mail address of the accountant who left the job three years ago. The bench set aside the ex parte order passed by the CIT( A ). The ITAT, comprising Dr. BRR Kumar ( Vice President ) and T. R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member ) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.

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 ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions of Rs. 4.50 crores and Rs. 44.50 lakhs, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

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.

Additionally, the Bench remarked that the Income Tax Additions cannot be duly adjudicated without providing the Assessee another opportunity of hearing, and set aside the matter to the file of CIT(A) to grant the Appellant another opportunity of being heard.

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 two-member Bench of T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member and Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member observed that the impugned CIT(A) order relied solely on the records adduced by the AO and paid no heed to the Assessee’s pleas of technical difficulties and condoned the delay of 28 days to file the appeal. In the interests of justice, the ITAT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders for all three Assessment Years and remitted the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.

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 two member bench comprising Sunil Kumar Singh(Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh(Accountant Member) found that the withdrawals required verification and sent the matter back to the assessing officer for review. It directed the assessee to cooperate and instructed the officer to follow the principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed, and the orders were set aside for fresh consideration.

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.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal, granting the liberty to revive it later if the settlement under the scheme did not succeed for any reason. The bench, comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy ( Vice President ) dismissed by the appeal filed by the assessee.

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 ITAT consisting of Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) and M Balaganesh (Accountant Member) held the reassessment proceedings invalid due to non-compliance with Section 151 and quashed the reassessment. As a result, the Appeal of the assessee was allowed.

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.

Since the lower authorities doubted the business claim due to inconsistent statements and non-filing of returns, the tribunal held that if the deposits were from business activities, the addition under Section 69A could not stand. To verify this, it restored the matter to the AO for examination. If satisfied, the officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

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.

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.

The two-member Bench of Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member and Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member observed that interest received from nationalized banks are not an allowable u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act. 1961 while observing that the issue of allowability of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on the said interest had to be further verified. As had been averred by the Departmental Representative, the assessee while giving revised working of proportionate interest expenditure allowable u/s. 57 had considered the entire expenditure debited to their profit and loss account of ₹1,22,78,772 and thus the same is required to be remitted to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication.

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.

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

In light of the relevance of the new evidence, the Bench proceeded to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer and TPO for relevant adjudication while directing them to reasses the transfer pricing computation in terms of the segmental data and comparables submitted by Bloomsbury and to verify the sundry creditors’ confirmations and re-evaluate the disallowance made by the AO after providing ample hearing opportunities to the Assessee.

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 also instructed the association to ensure compliance with procedural formalities and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, marking a victory for the apartment owners’ association.

This decision highlights the importance of addressing technical glitches in tax proceedings and underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair play and justice, especially for non-profit entities.

Jagdish Prasad vsIncomeTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 319

In a recent case, the Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the additions made by the assessing officer (AO) on certain cash deposits made during demonetisation.

The Tribunal, consisting of Anadee Nath Misshra concluded that the AO's addition was based on mere suspicion without substantial evidence. Consequently, the addition of ₹5,39,500 was deleted.

M/s. MFAR HoldingsPvt.Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 321

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed an appeal by the assessee due to a delay of 879 days, finding insufficient cause for the delay. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., appellant-assessee,engaged in real estate development and building maintenance services, filed its return of income on December 8, 2006, declaring a loss of ₹2.09 crore.

The two member bench comprising Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member) also rejected the argument that the assessee’s counsel was unwell, as no medical records were provided. Given the absence of diligence and supporting evidence, it refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds

Pradip KumarJajodia(HUF) vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 322

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the reassessment of ₹20.19 lakh Long Term Capital Gain ( LTCG ) as bogus due to lack of tangible evidence. Pradip Kumar Jajodia (HUF),appellant-assessee,, disputed the addition of ₹20,19,000, which was made by treating the LTCG from share sales as bogus and denying the exemption, along with the legality of the reassessment.

The two member bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad(Accountant Member) noted that the AO had simply reexamined the financials of the company and made assumptions rather than using tangible evidence. It concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not based on valid grounds, and the assessment order was quashed. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

IncomeTaxOfficer22(1)(6) vs Gajadharprasad Nathai Pal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 323

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)dismissed the revenue’s appeal since the tax effect, as shown in Form-36, was zero and fell below the ₹60,00,000 limit set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) circular.

Since this was below the Rs. 60,00,000/- limit set by the CBDT circular and the Department Representative failed to show any applicable exceptions, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. However, the revenue could seek reopening if it could establish that the appeal fell under any exceptions in the CBDT circular.

EurofinsPeenyaResources Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 324

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the Assessing Officer (AO)’s reassessment order, ruling it invalid due to the absence of material disclosure.

The tribunal also rejected the argument that the issue was already settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) scheme. It clarified that the original dispute was about payments to residents, while the reassessment concerned payments to non-residents, so the VSV settlement did not apply. In conclusion, the tribunal quashed the reassessment order, allowed the ground challenging its reopening, and the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed.

M/s. FLsmidth Pvt.Ltd.vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 325

The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ), finding that the Assessing Officer ( AO ) failed to verify key issues during reassessment, leading to an erroneous and prejudicial order.

The PCIT found that the A.O. had not conducted the necessary verification before accepting the assessee's computation. The ITAT agreed with the PCIT's direction to the AO to verify the claim and pass a fresh order. In short the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The DeputyCommissionerof Income Tax vs EYGBS CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 326

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the decision of the CIT(A) allowing a deduction under section 10AA of Income Tax Act,1961 on voluntary Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments made under an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA).

the appellate tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under section 10AA for the voluntary TP adjustment. In short,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

Decathlon SportsIndiaVS The Deputy Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 327

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to reassess the arm’s-length price for Decathlon Sports India Private Limited’s trading segment after rejecting the foreign associated enterprise (AE) as the tested party.

The two member bench comprising Soundararajan.K(Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi(Vice President) sent the matter back to the TPO instructing the assessee to provide more data to support the selection of the foreign AE as the tested party. The TPO was asked to reassess whether the method used was reliable and if the arm’s-length price of the trading segment was correctly determined.

Amit Gupta and SonsHUFVS DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 328

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed the search assessment against the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14, noting a lack of proper approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal held that the approval granted in this case lacked proper scrutiny, rendering the entire search assessment void from the beginning.The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, and the assessment order was quashed.

Income TaxOfficer-13(1)(1) vs Jaideep Metallics And Alloys Pvt Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 329

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal against the deletion of a ₹94.3 crore addition on alleged bogus purchases, citing sufficient supporting evidence.

Since the evidence provided was strong and unchallenged, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision and chose not to interfere.In short,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

IMNU StudentActivityAssociation vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 330

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)set aside the matter for verification by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the disallowance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit due to the non-inclusion of certain income in the return.

It found that the CIT(A) had erred in not granting the TDS credit. The matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer(AO) with instructions to verify the facts and grant the appropriate TDS credit. In short the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

GuruvaryaAacharyaKalapurna vs CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 331

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption)[CIT(E)] after the rejection of the Section 12AB registration application under the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to the failure to provide necessary documents.

Given the approaching statutory deadline of 30.09.2024, the tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee a final opportunity to submit the necessary details. The impugned order dated 21.09.2024 was set aside. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Atul Dave vs TheIncomeTax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 332

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded a recent case back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] based on improper fact adjudication and the authority’s failure to consider relevant documents. The case involved an addition of ₹13 lakh made under Section 68 (unexplained cash credit) and ₹6.5 under Section 69 (unexplained money) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT bench of Judicial Member Ms Suchitra Kamble remanded the case to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) files for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed that the authority adequately evaluate all submissions and evidence. The tribunal asserted that natural justice principles regarding the legitimacy of cash transactions must be upheld without fail.

EFY Technologies K22Malviya Marg vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 333

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench, has remanded a case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, citing a lack of reasonable opportunity provided to the assessee during the assessment proceedings.

While acknowledging the assessee’s casual approach in not responding to the AO’s notices, the ITAT remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 6,000 on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

Dr. MurugeshShantveeryaHiremath vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 334

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has quashed the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act on a cardiologist, for the assessment year 2018-19. The Tribunal ruled that there was a “reasonable cause” behind the delay in getting the tax audit done for the relevant assessment year, which justified the cancellation of the penalty.

After hearing both sides, the ITAT Bench comprising of R K Panda(Vice-President) and Vinay Bhamore(Judicial Member), observed that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to prove the reasonable cause for the delay. It referred to the decision in the case of APL (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT where similar circumstances had led to the deletion of the penalty. In Conclusion, the ITAT held that the penalty under Section 271B should be deleted due to the reasonable cause shown by the appellant.

Shri Girja ShankarvsIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 335

The Lucknow Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the addition of Rs. 56.50 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the consequential penalty of Rs. 22.37 lakh imposed and directed a fresh hearing for the assessee. Shri Girja Shankar (assessee), against whom an ex parte assessment order was passed by the Assessing officer (AO).

The tribunal also observed that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would depend on the outcome of the reassessment which will be passed by the Assessing Officer after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.

AssistantCommissionerof Income Tax – 32(1) vs Fitrite Packers C/o. Parle Products Pvt.Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 337

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CIT(A), which had granted relief to Fitrite Packers, a Mumbai-based partnership firm engaged in manufacturing biscuit and confectionery wrappers for the Parle Group.

The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s findings and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, emphasizing that the disallowances lacked merit.

GovindbhaiAtmaramThakor vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 338

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a delay of 340 days in filing an appeal considering the inability of the assessee to collect the notice and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. Govindbhai Atmaram Thakor, (assessee) is an agriculturist and employer of Modern Denim Ltd.

The tribunal also highlighted that AO should provide a proper opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee partly allowed for statistical purposes.

M/s. Hotel DeepakvsDCIT, Central Circle 3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 339

In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench deleted the addition made for declaration of income less than that made in the survey proceedings by the director of a company, by following the application of Presumptive Taxation Scheme under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The income tax appellate tribunal bench noted that the Assessee had been able to demonstrate its case for declaring the income below than the disclosure made by one of the directors in the survey operation u/s 133A of the Act and even otherwise the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case referred to above pertaining to AY 2017-18, had analyzed the identical facts and circumstances as involved in the instant case and by giving clear cut finding approved the Assessee’s income as declared.

Shramik Nagri vsTheIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 340

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] concerning the addition of Rs. 3.53 crore as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961.

Considering these factors, the tribunal set aside CIT(A)’s order and directed a fresh hearing, allowing the assessee to submit relevant documents.In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

HindustanPetroleumCorporation Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 341

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remitted the matter to the for fresh adjudication, finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] had failed to verify the applicability of the “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020” before dismissing the appeal.

The two member bench comprising Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) found that the CIT(A) had failed to follow the Tribunal's directions and had dismissed the appeal without verifying the facts.

As a result, the order was set aside, and the CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeal on merits, providing reasoning for the settlement under the scheme if applicable. The assessee was directed to provide a copy of the order to the CIT(A), and the AO was also instructed to do the same.

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTAvsITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 342

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision on the addition of Rs. 1.49 Crore for bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) derived from penny stocks.

The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar US ( Judicial Member ) and Shamim Yahya ( Accountant Member ) noted that the assessee failed to appear despite several notices. The appeal was disposed of after hearing the revenue counsel and reviewing the records. It found the case involved penny stock transactions and noted that the CIT(A) had addressed all arguments in a well-reasoned order. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and rejected the grounds raised by the assessee.In result,the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.