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

Hari KrushnaMachintech vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 343

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for a proper review after noting that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without considering the evidence provided by the assessee, concerning the addition of Rs.11.84 crore for bogus purchases.

The tribunal decided to send the matter back to the CIT(A) to review the evidence and make a decision, ensuring the assessee was given a fair hearing. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed.

HemantkumarRajendrakumar vs Deputy Commissioner of Income CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 344

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh consideration due to non-consideration of grounds and failure to provide adequate hearing.

The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(A) summarily dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial evidence was submitted to overturn the AO’s decision and that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Since the CIT(A) refused to address the grounds raised and issued all hearing notices within a month, the tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh consideration with a proper hearing opportunity. In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

M/s. Gold PalaceJewellers vs ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) Bangalore CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 345

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded back for fresh adjudication to the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals)[CIT(A)] after a delay of four years for disposing of the appeal citing a violation of natural justice.

The tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The tribunal further directed the assessee to submit all necessary documents and not to seek adjournments. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Gourishankar EducationSociety vs CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 346

The Pune bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed a fresh reassessment due to the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in assessing the assessee trust’s Rs. 3.30 crore Interest-free loan and interest income. Gourishankar Education Society, (assessee) a trust registered under the Societies Act, 1860, is also registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.

the tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, stating that the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The tribunal confirmed the revisionary order, directing the AO to reassess the assessee's income afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

Devendra Kumar Dubeyvs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 347

The Agra bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ordered a fresh adjudication in a case involving income concealment allegations due to natural justice violation.

The single bench member of the ITAT, comprising Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes and restored the matter back to CIT(A) for adjudication.

Hingora Ali Mohd ValiMohd vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 348

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] order, which had dismissed the appeal under Section 249(4) of Income Tax Act,1961 for non-payment of advance tax, considering the assessee’s senior citizen status and health issues.

The two member bench comprising Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) and Dr.Dipak P.Ripote(Accountant Member) on considering these factors, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, directing a fresh decision on merits after allowing the assessee to present necessary documents.In result,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax - 1(2)1 vs B. Braun Medical India PvtLtd A-Wing CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 349

In a recent case, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed an appeal put forth by the revenue, deleting a ₹2 Crore addition made under the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT Bench, consisting of Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), stated that the mistake in classification, i.e. recording it as a liability instead of a recoverable asset,t does not justify an addition made under Section 68. As a result, the appeal raised by the revenue was dismissed.

Karunamoorthi Kavithavs Assistant Commissioner CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 350

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Chennai Bench ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Rs. 35 lakh addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the assessing officer had wrongly classified gifts received from her mother and brother as unexplained cash credits without considering the supporting evidence provided by the assessee.

The ITAT deleted the Rs.35 lakh addition under Section 68, ruling that the assessment was unjustified. A Two Member Bench composed of George George K ( Vice-President ) and S.R. Raghunatha ( Accountant Member ) allowed the appeal filed by assessee.

Laxmi Nanda KishoreVelegatla vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 351

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Chennai Bench has ruled in favor of Laxmi Nanda Kishore, setting aside the Rs.12.14 lakh addition made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A Two Member Bench composed of George George K ( Vice-President ) and S R Raghunatha ( AccountantMember ) ruled that the entire Rs.12.14 lakh addition was unjustified and deleted it in full.

Indian Oil CorporationLtd. vs DCIT-14(2)(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 352

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted interest on excess self-assessment tax under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and partially allowed claim for additional interest under Section 244A(1A), restricting it to the period post-01.06.2016.

The tribunal agreed with the revenue that additional interest for refund delays could only be granted after 01.06.2016, as per the Gujarat High Court ruling in Nima Specific Family Trust (2018). The tribunal also stated that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme only settled tax payments, not interest disputes, so CIT(A) was wrong in dismissing the appeal. The tribunal dismissed the revenue’s appeal and partially allowed the assessee’s appeal, allowing interest on excess self-assessment tax while limiting additional interest to the period after 01.06.2016.

Dy. Commissioner ofIncome Tax-1(1) vs Agrawal Global Infratech Pvt. Ltd.CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 353

The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)], which deleted the additions made by the assessing officer (AO) by noting that the transactions were duly substantiated. ‘

The bench comprising Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) held that the addition made under Section 68 would not be sustained, and the bench dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.

Gopal Agarwal vsIncome-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 354

The Agra Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to audit accounts, citing the pendency of the quantum assessment appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to first determine the quantum appeal after giving a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The tribunal also instructed the assessee to fully cooperate with the appellate proceedings to ensure a fair resolution. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Sangeet PlazaIFTEX Office Premises vs Commissioner of Income TaxCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 355

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of Income Tax Act,1961 for interest earned from a cooperative bank.

The two member bench Anikesh Banerjee(Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar(Accountant Member) comprising that the claim of the assessee should be allowed based on these precedents, and it was decided that the CPC's disallowance was unjustified. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was granted to the assessee. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

DCIT vs M/s. RajooEngineers Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 358

The Rajkot bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not apply to share allotments by public limited companies in cases of amalgamation. M/s Rajoo Engineers Ltd., (assessee) is a public limited company engaged in manufacturing plastic extrusion machinery.

The Tribunal observed that in cases of amalgamation, the allotment of shares by the amalgamated company to the shareholders of the amalgamating companies is not a "transfer" under Section 47(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) did not apply to such transactions. The tribunal held that the protective addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii) was unsustainable. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

GEBBS SolutionsHealthcare vs DCITCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 356

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the deferred tax adjustment, stating that the Assessing officer (AO) accepted the assessee’s Income Tax Return without any adjustments.

The tribunal further observed that the returned income of Rs. 18.60 crores and the same has been computed by the AO. Therefore, the tribunal observed that adjustments made under section 143(1) cannot be sustained. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that any adjustment made under section 143(1) did not survive and it became infructuous. Therefore, the tribunal deleted the deferred tax adjustment made under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ACIT vs M/s HellaIndia Lighting Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 357

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals(CIT(A))’s decision on the disallowance of ₹96.71 Lakh foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee due to import-export transactions without hedging.

the CIT(A) found that the loss was valid and deleted the addition made by the AO. This decision was considered just and proper.In short,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

ACIT vs M/s HellaIndia Lighting LtdCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 357

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] decision, dismissing the disallowance of Rs. 3.15 crore expenses due to insufficient documentation. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC )’s order dated 21.08.2023, which stemmed from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ( DCIT )’s order under Section 143(3) for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Based on this, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3.15 crore in other expenses, and the decision was upheld by the tribunal, finding it just and proper. As a result,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

GEAR Foundation vs TheAssistant Commissioner of Income TaxCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 359

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessee to produce supporting documents after the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed depreciation over alleged double deduction.

Therefore, the tribunal remanded the matter to the AO, for the claim of depreciation. The tribunal directed the assessee to produce evidence to substantiate that if depreciation is allowed, it will not amount to a double deduction.The tribunal also directed the AO to grant depreciation if no double deduction was found. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

ACIT, CIRCLE 10(1) vsHINDUKUSH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 360

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal due to low tax effect under Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) Circular No. 09/2024. The Revenue-appellant,appealed against the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2016- 17 where Hindukush Construction Pvt. Ltd. was the respondent-assessee.

The two member bench comprising Vimal Kumar(Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya(Accountant Member) dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, with the departmental representative stating that the tax effect in this case was Rs. 58,18,619/-. As a result,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

Ambuja Neotia HotelVentures Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 361

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the notional rental value of unsold flat cannot be taxable under house property head. The assessee, Ambuja Neotia Hotel Ventures, had appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15.

The Kolkata ITAT further observed that “the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of, wherein the case, under similar facts and circumstances, has been decided in favour of the assessee.” The bench ordered the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 64.4 lakhs.The ITAT, comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

Ambuja Neotia HotelVentures Ltd vs DCITCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 361

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer (AO) to consider fresh evidence in the unexplained expenditure addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench restored the matter back to the AO and directed that the reconciliation along with the revised details should be taken into account. The ITAT, comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

Gajendra Pal SharmaC/o Kashyap & Co. 114 vs The Income-tax OfficerWard – 1(2)CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 362

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the validity of the reassessment based on Annual Information Return(AIR) information. Gajendra Pal Sharma, appellant- assessee, filed a return of income on July 25, 2012, declaring Rs. 2,34,600 as total income and Rs. 49,500 as agricultural income.

After considering the facts, the bench concluded that the AO had reasonable grounds to reopen the assessment and that the reassessment proceedings were valid. The tribunal dismissed the assessee’s objections and upheld the AO’s actions.

A.C.I.T. vs ShriSachit Kumar AgarwalCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 363

The Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s deletion of the ₹1.22 crore addition made under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 for cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order of the CIT(A).In this case,Sachit Kumar Agarwal,respondent-assessee, was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act through an order dated December 30, 2019.

The two member bench comprising Subhash malguria(Judicial Member) and Anadee NathMisshra (Accountant Member)reviewed the records, the assessee’s submissions, and the CIT(A)’s reasoning. It found the deletion of ₹1,22,00,000 to be fair and lawful. Since the Revenue failed to provide valid grounds for interference, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order. In conclusion the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

A.C.I.T. vs Shri SachitKumar Agarwal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 363

The Lucknow Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) CIT(A)’s decision to reduce the gross profit addition from ₹1.01 crore to ₹10.21 lakh. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order of the CIT(A).In this case,Sachit Kumar Agarwal,respondent-assessee, was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act through an order dated December 30, 2019. The total income was determined at ₹2,75,41,208, with an additional ₹5,93,000 as agricultural income.

As a result, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing with the addition of Rs.10,20,693/- for gross profit and the deletion of the rest of the Rs.1,01,54,618/- addition. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs Infrasoft Technologies Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 364

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted an exemption under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ruling that the unit in question was not merely a converted export unit but a newly established STPI unit, fulfilling all necessary conditions for the exemption.

The tribunal ruled that the mere existence of a domestic unit at the same premises earlier does not negate the fact that a new STPI unit was set up. Seeing the clear documentary evidence proving the establishment of a new unit, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)’s order and ruled that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10A. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

J.K Jewel Craft vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 365

The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the addition of Rs. 53.02 lakhs as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act stating that the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of mere suspicion.

The tribunal directed the deletion of the disputed addition of Rs. 45.43 lakhs,and held that the addition was based on mere suspicion and lacked legal merit. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Gajanand Bhalotia vsACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 368

The Ranchi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allows the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeal as the assessee opts for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee has requested before the ITAT the permission to withdraw the present appeal as the assessee, Gajanand Bhalotia, has opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme of the Department.

The Judicial Member, Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, allowed to withdraw the assessee’s appeal, and thus it was dismissed. None appeared for the assessee and the department was represented by Khubchand T. Pandya, Senior Departmental Representative.

Md. Ilyas ShekhaniAvon Agency vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 369

The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.

The ITAT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter after granting a fair opportunity to the assessee by providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, who shall remain at liberty to substantiate his claim based on fresh documentary evidence, if any. The ITAT, comprising Judicial Member Ravish Sood, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.

JB Dairy Farms PrivateLimited vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 371

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to reconsider using the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular for the addition of Rs. 1.06 crore as unexplained cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period.

JB Dairy Farms Pvt. Ltd., (assessee) engaged in dairy farming did not file its Income Tax Return for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed a cash deposit of Rs. 1.06 crore in the company’s Syndicate Bank account, of which Rs. 89 lakh was deposited during the demonetization period.

Amit Kumar Gupta vsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 366

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the assessment orders for Amit Kumar Gupta for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, noting a jurisdictional lapse in the transfer of the case.

The bench noted that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the assessee's challenge to the jurisdiction of the ITO in Korba, rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds. The ITAT set aside the assessment orders and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to address the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee. The ITAT, comprising Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

Co-operative CaneDevelopment vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 370

The Lucknow bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to an erroneous calculation of the delay in filing an appeal by the assessee.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on the condonation of delay.The tribunal highlighted that the return was filed within the extended due date, and therefore, the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P was incorrect. The order was passed by Accountant Member Anadee Nath Misshra.

Madhu Anil Mark vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 372

The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeal as 2 appeals were filed by the assessee on the same subject matter due to technical error.

By looking into the facts of the case, the bench comprising Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) and Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee to withdraw the captioned appeal

M/s. Sri ArumugaCottspin Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 373

In a recent ruling, the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the disallowance of ₹88 Lakhs in knitting charges under Section 40A(3) as cash payments exceeding the prescribed limit. The assessee, Sri Arumuga Cottspin Pvt Ltd, a manufacturer of cotton and synthetic yarn, was subjected to a survey under Section 133A.

The ITAT bench, consisting of Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), held that the disallowance was restricted to ₹23 lakhs per the payments that violated the cash payment provisions. The tribunal also allowed the set-off of carry-forward losses and directed the assessing officer to verify and grant additional relief to the assessee.

IQVIA AnalyticsServices Pvt. Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 387

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the Transfer Pricing Officer ( TPO ) cannot introduce a new adjustment in the current assessment year ( AY ) if no such adjustment was made in prior years for identical transactions, explaining the principle of consistency in transfer pricing assessments.

The tribunal explained that the principle of consistency must be maintained unless there is a substantial change in facts or law. The tribunal further clarified that since Rule 10TA applies only to taxpayers opting for Safe Harbour rules, its provisions could not be applied to the assessee. The tribunal directed the TPO to exclude the notional ESOP costs and intangible asset expenses while computing the PLI. The tribunal was allowed.

HPL MERCANTILE PVT.LTD vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 386

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an erroneous addition of Rs. 19,253 made by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) after finding that the amount had already been included in the taxable income.

The two-member bench, comprising Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) and Vimal Kumar (Judicial Member), ruled that CPC's addition of Rs. 19,253 was erroneous, as it led to double taxation of an already declared income. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the addition. Regarding the denial of concessional tax under Section 115BAA, the tribunal observed that the assessee did not press grounds related to this issue. So, those grounds were dismissed as "not pressed." The tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

Sh. Harish Jain vs TheACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 389

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs. 55 lakh as undisclosed income, ruling that the addition could not be made solely on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence.

Citing Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court rulings, the ITAT ruled that no addition could be made based solely on a retracted statement without corroborating evidence. Accordingly, the addition was deleted. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Harish Jain vs TheACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 389

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the Rs. 3 lakh income addition, ruling that the proportionate income was already disclosed in the tax return.

The assessee contended that the document could not be partially considered incriminating. Since the taxable portion was already reported, the ITAT directed the deletion of the Rs. 3,00,000 addition. In short the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs Harsh Stock Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 390

Read More: The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the Rs. 4.28 crore addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 for unexplained loans, finding the loans were repaid within the same year and conducted through banking channels.

The appellate tribunal observed that the loans were repaid within the same year and all transactions were conducted through banking channels. Relying on a Gujarat High Court decision, the ITAT agreed that no addition should be made under section 68 when loans were repaid in the same year and the transactions were through proper channels. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision.

Shri Jai Singh vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 391

In a recent ruling, the Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) overturned a tax demand related to ₹1.36 crores in cash deposits made during the demonetisation period by the assessee.

The tribunal consisting of Subhash Malguria ( Judicial Member ) and Anadee Nath Mishra ( Accountant Member ), dismissed the income tax department’s appeal seeking to reinstate the ₹1.36 crore addition which was deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal by deleting the entire disputed amount along with the ₹5.78 lakh addition levied on the assessee. As a result, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

ITAT Orders Reassessment in ₹1.8 Cr Capital Gains Case, directs AO to Review E-Notices and Deductions u/s 54 of Income Tax Act

Shri Badri Narayananvs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 392

Read More: The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer (AO) to reassess the appellant’s case, a dispute on capital gains taxation for the assessment year(AY) 2016-17.

The ITAT bench consisting of Jagdish (Accountant Member) and George George K (Vice President) set aside the CIT(A)’s order. It remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh examination. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of Rs. 25 lakh as unexplained cash credits, ruling that the loan from the assessee’s promoters was genuine.

Therefore, the ITAT accepted the assessee’s grievance, as all three aspects—identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness—had been established for the Rs. 25 lakh loan under consideration. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Dy. CIT (IT)-3(1)(2) vs Jefferies International Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 394

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that reimbursement of expenses is not taxable as FTS under Article 13(4) of the India-UK Treaty.

The ITAT observed that the expenses incurred by the assessee on behalf of JIPL were for third-party services such as Bloomberg Finance LLC, Dow Jones & Company Inc., and others, which were essential for JIPL’s operations. These expenses were reimbursed by JIPL to the assessee without any markup. The ITAT noted the nature of these payments was purely reimbursement of costs and did not involve any technical knowledge, skill, or processes being made available to JIPL, as required under Article 12 of the India-US tax treaty. The order was passed by Padmavathy S. (accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (vice president).

Dy. CIT (IT)-3(1)(2)vs Jefferies International Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 394

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that payments received in lieu of administrative support services do not qualify as fees for technical services under the India-UK double tax avoidance agreement (DTAA).

The bench by referring to the above-mentioned decision of the coordinate bench, reached a conclusion that the services in question are outside the ambit of FIS and FTS. The order was passed by Padmavathy S. (accountant member) and Saktijit Dey (vice president).

Asst. Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs M/s. Mithra Kyokuto Special PurposeVehicles Company Pvt Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 397

The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)restored the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) by disallowing the depreciation claim of ₹2,66,81,164 due to the lack of evidence for the installation of machinery.

Since there was no evidence of machinery installation, the tribunal disallowed the depreciation claim, allowed the revenue’s appeal, and restored the AO’s order.

Mauli Nagari SahakariPatsanstha Maryadit vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 395

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] after non-compliance with statutory notices led to penalties and additions for unexplained cash deposits.

In the interest of justice, the tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to CIT(A),directing the assessee to submit details on the hearing date without seeking adjournments. If the assessee failed to comply, CIT(A) was allowed to pass an appropriate order. In conclusion,the ground raised by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Shri Manoj Kumar vsThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 396

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals )[CIT(A)] order on the denial of exemption under Section 54 of Income Tax Act,1961 due to lack of supporting documents.

The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)’s order for this reason. The matter was sent back for fresh consideration, directing the CIT(A) to pass a new order after hearing the assessee. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes

M/s. Mono Steel(India) Ltd VS Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 398

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh consideration in a case involving a penalty under Section 270A of Income Tax Act,1961 for under-reported income, after the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without considering the relief granted in the quantum proceedings.

In the interest of fairness, the tribunal sent the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, directing a fair hearing and review of the quantum proceedings.In short, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Bank of Maharashtra1501 vs PCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 399

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Bank of Maharashtra for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s (AO) assessment order was not erroneous, even if it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The ITAT consisting of R.K. Panda (Vice President ) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) quashed the PCIT’s revision order, restoring the AO’s original assessment and allowing the Bank of Maharashtra’s deduction under Section 36(1)(via) of the Income Tax Act.

Landis +Gyr Limited vsDCIT, Cir.1(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 685

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the assessing officer to delete the adjustment of Rs. 3.09 crores as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] failed to consider the factual mistake committed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC). The issue in this case is that the CPC flagged a mismatch involving a GST adjustment of Rs. 5.74 crore, which the system erroneously treated as an item falling under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act (income chargeable under business profits). The CIT(A) upheld the CPC’s adjustment, noting that the assessee had failed to correct the error in Form 3CD and that the auditors had incorrectly reported the amount.

The ITAT bench held that the CPC’s adjustment was based on a misinterpretation of the tax audit report the CIT(A) failed to rectify this mistake during appellate proceedings, and it set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the AO to delete the Rs. 3.09 crore adjustment. The Kolkata ITAT, comprising Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal.

Falguni AjayPanchmatia vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 686

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for de novo meritorious adjudication after condoning a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal noting the timely payment of appeal fees. The assessee, Falguni Ajay Panchmatia, had appealed against the order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15.

The ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) and directed the latter to condone the delay of 5 days and to take up the matter for denovo meritorious adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee at the first appellate stage. The order also stated that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to make any further submissions. In conclusion, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT, comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

MD Mahimud SK vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 687

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the orders passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre’s orders as the latter observed that the assessment proceedings under Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the show cause notice (SCN), were issued without jurisdiction. In this case, the assessee, Md. Mahimud SK, appealed against the orders of the NFAC and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had upheld additions of Rs. 21,06,182 to his income for assessment year (AY) 2015-16 on account of unexplained credits in his bank accounts.

The Kolkata ITAT, comprising Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), concluded that the assessment was framed without jurisdiction and will not sustain.

Udaylal Hiralal JainShop No.8 vs Income-tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 688

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case for fresh adjudication after noting the assessee’s compliance. In this case, the assessee, Udayal Hiralal Jain, had appealed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17.

The ITAT also directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so desired. The assessee was also directed to be diligent in attending the hearing proceedings. And thus, in conclusion, the grounds taken by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT Mumbai, comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial ember) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

JCB India Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 689

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)set aside an arbitrary transfer pricing adjustment on royalty payments and directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to align with the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) parameters. The assessee, JCB India, is the Indian subsidiary of a multinational company engaged in the manufacturing and trading of construction equipment, spare parts, and components. The company had entered into Technology Transfer Agreements (TTA) with its associated enterprises (AEs) to receive proprietary technology, allowing it to manufacture and sell technologically advanced products.

The ITAT bench consisting of Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) observed and held that the TPO’s selection of a single comparable and its downward adjustment to 2% was arbitrary and lacked objective reasoning. Prior assessments for AY 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 had accepted the 5% royalty rate for Germany-based AEs, further reinforcing the need for consistency. As a result the ITAT allowed the taxpayer’s appeal and directed the TPO to follow the APA parameters while determining the ALP for the disputed royalty payments.

ACIT vs Goenka Trading CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 690

In a recent case, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that writing off bad debt in the books is enough for deduction, without the need to prove irrecoverability. Goenka Trading, a registered partnership firm, is engaged in diamond and commodity trading, as well as share trading and futures & options transactions. The assessee filed its income tax return, reporting a loss of ₹5.94 crore. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Bench dismissed the appeal of the revenue, highlighting the case of T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) and CBDT Circular No. 12/2016, and held that an assessee need not prove a debt is irrecoverable; its write-off in the books is sufficient for deduction.

Vaneet Gupta vs TheITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 691

The Chandigarh bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to revise assessments, cannot be invoked solely on the basis of an audit objection.

The bench quashed the PCIT’s order, noting the lack of application of mind by the PCIT, and referred to the precedents raised by the assessee in support of their argument. It held that the PCIT cannot initiate proceedings solely based on audit objections without applying their mind.

Jignesh Shah vs TheAsst.CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 697

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) after finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] had denied the assessee a fair opportunity to present evidence and had failed to adequately examine the provided documents.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) Makarand V.Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) concluded that the assessment was unfair and set aside the CIT(A)’s order, directing the AO to reconsider the case after giving the assessee a proper chance to submit evidence. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

SHRI RAKESH vs ITO,WARD 3(4) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 693

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after finding that the appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution, as the notices were not issued to the updated email address provided by the assessee.

The two member bench comprising Vimal Kumar(Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya(Accountant Member) found that the AO passed an ex-parte order under section 144, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee claimed this was due to notices not being sent to the updated email address. In the interest of justice, the ITAT decided to give the assessee another chance to present the case. The issues were sent back to the AO to be decided after hearing the assessee. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Shri. Devadass Sureshvs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 700

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted addition of Rs.9,00,500/- made by the Assessing Officer(AO) during demonetization, accepting the claim that a significant portion of the deposit came from the assessee’s mother’s lifetime savings.

Although the assessee failed to provide conclusive proof of the cash deposit during demonetization, the tribunal accepted the mother’s cash contribution and gave the assessee the benefit of doubt for the remaining amount. It deleted the entire addition confirmed by the CIT(A). In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

ITO vs NEERAJ KUMAR CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 695

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s decision to limit the gross profit ( GP ) rate to 1% for the Assessment Year (AY)2012-13, rejecting the assessee’s challenge against the enhanced GP rate and unverifiable purchases.

The two member bench comprising Vimal Kumar(Judicial Member) and Shamim Yahya(Accountant Member) after hearing both parties and reviewing the records, agreed with the CIT(A) that once the books were rejected, no ad-hoc additions should be made. The CIT(A) had correctly limited the GP to 1% instead of 1.5% as estimated by the AO. The assessee accepted that the 1% GP was fair and did not need any changes. As a result, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision and dismissed the cross appeal filed by the assessee.

Shri. KumaraswamyGangadharaiah Kallur vs DCIT

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 696

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) sets aside Principal Commissioner of Income Tax[Pr.CIT]’s order on penalty proceedings under section 271B of Income Tax Act,1961 for late filing of audit report due to lack of jurisdiction.

The two member bench comprising Soundararajan K(Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Accountant Member) held that the Pr. CIT’s order directing penalty proceedings under section 263 was beyond jurisdiction, as it went beyond the reasons recorded for reassessment. It set aside the Pr. CIT's order. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Ad-hoc Disallowance of Expenses for Lack of Documents: ITAT Upholds CIT(A)’s Deletion of Rs. 5.92 Crore Addition

Assistant CITCircle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad vs H.V. Infratex Ltd.

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 699

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the deletion of the Rs. 5.92 crore disallowance made on an ad-hoc basis due to lack of supporting documents. The Revenue-appellant, appealed against the order dated 30.10.2023,passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

Citing judicial precedents, the tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances without specific defects were unsustainable. As the Departmental Representative (DR) provided no new arguments, the ITAT found no error in the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the addition. In short,the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

ITAT Rejects Revenue’s Objection on Additional Evidence, Finds CIT(A) Acted Within Section 250(4) Powers

Assistant CITCircle-2(1)(1) Ahmedabad vs H.V. Infratex Ltd.

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 699

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) rejected the Revenue’s objection regarding the admission of additional evidence by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and upheld that the CIT(A) acted within its powers under Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Revenue-appellant, appealed against the order dated 30.10.2023,passed by CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

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

Failure to Claim TDS Credit in Return: ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decision to Allow Credit after Verification

DCIT vs RAVIINTEGRATED LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 692

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] decision to allow the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit after verifying the corresponding income, despite the failure to claim it in the return. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order dated 10.07.2024, passed by CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2022-23.

The CIT(A) noted that the claim was reflected in the accounts and Form 26AS and directed the AO to examine the TDS claim and verify if the corresponding income was reported in the return. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)’s findings and affirmed the order. In short,the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed

Shree Prithvi SteelRolling Mills Private Limited vs Dy. CIT

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 694

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] due to non-compliance with Section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act,1961 in cash payments, imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000.

The appeal was disposed of for statistical purposes, and the case was sent back to the CIT(A) for a new decision. The assessee was to participate in the proceedings as directed

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal as Reassessment Under Section 147/148 Invalid Due to Third-Party Search Evidence

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs Sh. Kailash Chand Hirawat 9

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 698

The Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that reassessment under Section 147/148 of Income Tax Act,1961 was invalid due to reliance on third-party search evidence. The Revenue-appellant, appealed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] dated 18.07.2024.

Bharti Airtel Limitedvs Principal CIT

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 703

In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against Bharti Airtel Limited. The tribunal held that interest and penalty paid on license fees qualify as revenue expenditure and allowed a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

The ITAT, comprising Judicial Member Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member Pradip Kumar Kedia, cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, in which the tribunal reiterated that mere disagreement with the AO’s conclusion does not empower the PCIT to invoke Section 263 unless the order is both erroneous and prejudicial.

Takhatsinh F. Dodia vsThe ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 704

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside an appeal order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh assessment, admitting additional evidence related to an unsecured loan of Rs. 17 lakh. Coming to the facts of the case, the assessee, Takhatsinh F. Dodia, a resident of Surat, declared an agricultural income of Rs. 31.25 lakhs in his return for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. But later on, the assessee claimed that it was a clerical error and the correct figure was Rs. 3.12 lakh.

The ITAT directed the assessee to cooperate fully with the AO and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The ITAT, comprising Pawan Singh ( Judicial Member ) and Bijayananda Pruthesh (Technical Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

Sri Sai Sanskar Trustvs CIT (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 705

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the inadvertent selection of an incorrect clause in an application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not be grounds for outright rejection as it was not fatal to proceedings.

The tribunal, comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Ms. Astha Chandra (Judicial Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes

Naeemakhtar Fanibandvs I T O CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 706

The Panaji Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), upheld the principles of natural justice by providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], along with the condition that the assessee must pay a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Income Tax Department within one month from the date of receiving the order and submit proof of payment.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of Rs. 2,000 as a cost. The ITAT, comprising Pavan KumarGadale (Judicial Member) and GD Padmashali (Accountant Member), allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA vsACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 707

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the assessment, holding that the approval under Section 153D of Income Tax Act,1961 was granted mechanically without due application of mind.

Based on these findings, the tribunal ruled that the approval under Section 153D lacked due application of mind, quashed the assessments, and allowed the appeal.

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs East India Petroleum Limited

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 708

The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the deduction of interest on a loan taken for share acquisition, recognizing it as a business expense. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] dated 19.08.2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, it held that a loan taken to gain controlling interest and prevent competition served a legitimate business purpose. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete the disallowance, allowing the interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act

Disallowance of Depreciation on Goodwill: ITAT Upholds Claim as Intangible Asset Eligible u/s 32

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs East India Petroleum Limited

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 708

The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the depreciation claim on goodwill, affirming it as an intangible asset eligible under Section 32 of Income Tax Act,1961. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A dated 19.08.2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

ITAT stated that for intangible assets, the term ‘use’ should be interpreted practically, and the mere existence of goodwill met this criterion under Section 32 of the Act. In light of these findings, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, allowing the depreciation claim on goodwill and ruling that the AOhad wrongly disallowed it.

Rahul Bajpai vs TheAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 709

In a recent judgement, the Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that reassessment cannot be done based on a mere change of opinion under section 147 of the Income Tax, 1961.

The tribunal observed that the assessee had explained the reason for the reduced property price, which the previous AO had examined and accepted during the original assessment. Despite the absence of new material, the successor, AO, reopened the case, merely re-evaluating the same facts, making the reassessment unsustainable.

Diamond Cash Sales Duly Recorded in Books: ITAT upholds Deletion of Rs. 1 Cr Addition

The DCIT vs RadhikaDiamonds, Vadodara

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 710

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the deletion of a Rs. 1 Crore addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the Diamond cash sales were duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by sufficient evidence.

The tribunal observed that there was no basis to interfere with the CIT(A)’s findings. The tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 1 Crore by the CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

Amitsingh VrajrajsinghBhadoriya vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 711

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed an addition of over Rs. 4 crore after observing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had relied on a bank account which was not owned by the assessee.

The tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to obtain statements from the bank regarding the ownership of bank accounts. The tribunal directed the AO to pass an fresh assessment order after obtaining information from the bank. The tribunal quashed the addition of Rs. 4 crore and the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT Upholds Additions for Unexplained Cash Credit and Delayed PF Payments, Grants Partial Relief on Foreign Travel Expenses

Shridev Procon Limitedvs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 712

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, had delivered a ruling allowing partial deductions for foreign travel expenses claimed by the appellant while disallowing a portion on the grounds of personal use.

The ITAT Bench comprised of Waseem Ahmed(Vice President) and Annapurna Gupta(Accountant Member ) while granting partial relief on the foreign travel expenses, upheld the AO’s findings on the unexplained cash credit and delayed PF payments.

ACIT-3(3)(1) vs SikkaPorts and Terminals Ltd.

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 713

The tribunal noted that while the amount spent is mandatory, companies can choose where to donate By Adwaid M S - On April 5, 2025 7:25 am - 2 mins read The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Mumbai recently delivered a significant ruling, allowing companies to claim deductions under Section 80G for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditures.

The ITAT bench comprising Amit Shukla (Judicial Member and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) dismissed both appeals by revenue authorities.

ITAT quashes Assessment over Lack of Independent Verification in S.153D Approval

Mainee Steel WorksPvt. Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 714

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) quashed the assessment against the assessee, holding that the approval granted under Section 153D of Income Tax Act,1961, was mechanical and lacked independent verification.

The two member bench comprising Vimal Kumar (Judicial Member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia(Accountant Member) based on the given findings held that the assessments were invalid due to improper approval under Section 153D. Other objections did not require separate adjudication.