Priti Mishra vsTheAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 716

The Allahabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), dismissed an appeal filed by a resident of Clive Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad, after she opted to settle her tax dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.

The ITAT bench of Allahabad, comprising Subhash Malguria (Judicial Member) and Nikhil Choudhary (Accountant Member), dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn.

Joy Thomas vs TheIncomeTax Officer - Ward -1

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 717

The Cochin bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter back for de novo assessment as the bench observed that the assessing officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] failed to consider the Rule 6DD exceptions in cash deposit disallowance.

ITAT also observed that the AO failed to examine the exceptions enumerated under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules before invoking Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The bench comprising Soundararajan (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

T.J. Mathai andCompanyvs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 718

The Cochin bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs imposed under Section 271B for delayed tax audit due to the demise of the managing partner.

Relying on a similar judgement by the Kerala High Court in the case of Chavakkad Service Co-op. Bank Ltd [2024] 169 taxmann.com 45 (Kerala), where the penalty was deleted under comparable circumstances, deleted the penalty. The bench comprising Soundararajan (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) deleted the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 levied under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act.

Violation of Natural Justice: ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A)’s Ex-Parte Order Passed without Notice to Assessee

Sandha And AssociatesPLtd vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 720

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in a recent ruling has set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CIT(A)](NFAC), after finding that the assessee had not been issued any notice before the order was pronounced.

The Tribunal, comprising of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member), further directed that the CIT(A) shall grant a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to make submissions and produce necessary documentation and, thereafter, pass a speaking order by law. At the same time, it cautioned the assessee to participate in the proceedings once notice was served. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the CIT(A) order was set aside.

M/s.SamartthaDevelopers vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 720

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) in interest of justice with penalty in a case where an addition of Rs. 30 crore was made as unexplained investment.

The tribunal remanded the matter to the AO in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to substantiate the claim of the assessee. The tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was thus allowed for statistical purposes.

Income Tax Addition for Turnover Mismatch Set Aside Due to Lack of Evidence: ITAT Deletes Disallowance under Section 40A(3) as Income was Estimated

Nishant Jain vsTheAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 719

In a recent ruling, the Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) partly allowed appeals for multiple assessment years by holding that where income is assessed on an estimated basis, separate disallowances, such as those under Section 40A(3), are not sustainable.

The ITAT, consisting of Arun Khodpia and Ravish Sood (Judicial member), further deleted both disallowances made under Section 40A(3), holding that once the assessee’s income had been estimated on a presumptive basis at 8% of turnover, no further disallowance was justified. It cited the decision in CIT v. Smt. Santosh Jain [(2008) 296 ITR 324 (P&H)], which established that the estimation of income subsumes minor discrepancies and cash transactions unless separately claimed. The disallowance for delayed ESI/PF payments was upheld, following the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT.

PCIT Revision Order: ITAT Rules Assessment Order not erroneous, Rules Unexplained Money matter Properly Verified

ChandrakantVallabhbhaivs The PCIT, Central Circle-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 721

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), ruling that the assessment order was not erroneous.

The tribunal held that the AO properly verified the matter and also held that the assessment order was not erroneous. The appeal of the assessee was thus allowed.

No Possession, No Taxation: ITAT Deletes Capital Gains Addition u/s 2(47) of Income Tax Act

Sandesh VasantraoPawarvs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 724

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification in a case involving alleged capital gains based on a cancelled development agreement.

The Bench, led by Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member), directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a fresh verification by deputing an inspector or through a local report from the ITO in Satara, where the land is located. If it is confirmed that no possession was handed over and that construction did not commence, the addition on account of capital gains would be unwarranted. However, if contrary findings emerge, the AO was asked to proceed by law after affording the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Silver OakBuildconPrivate Limited vs ACIT, Circle – 6, Pune CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 722

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has cancelled a penalty of Rs.22.93 lakh that was imposed on Silver Oak Buildcon Private Limited, a construction company based in Pune. The penalty was levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act for alleged under-reporting of Rs.37 lakh related to unpaid service tax and Rs.11,556 related to delayed Provident Fund payments.

The bench, comprising Vice President R.K. Panda and Judicial Member Vinay Bhamore, stated that when unpaid liabilities are openly disclosed in audit documents, they do not imply intentional wrongdoing. The penalty, in this case, was a result of procedural lapses and lacked legal justification.

ITO (Exemption Ward)vsSavitribai CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 725

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune bench held that the exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be denied for mere procedural defaults if the assessee meets all substantive conditions.

The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that denying the exemption on procedural grounds was unfair and against natural justice. The CPC’s rejection was found to be unjustified. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

AO Adds Rs. 5.38 Lakh as Unexplained Cash Deposit: ITAT Confirms Rs. 48,000 Addition as Taxpayer Fails to Prove Source

Shri BalineniKishoreBabu vs Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 730

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) confirmed Rs. 48,000 as assessee failed to prove source of deposits in the case where the Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 5.38 lakh as unexplained cash deposits.

The Tribunal accepted Rs. 3.92 lakh as satisfactorily explained and acknowledged an additional Rs. 1 lakh from the uncle. The tribunal upheld the remaining addition of Rs. 48,000 as assessee unable to prove source. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Ecoboard IndustriesLtdvs DCIT, Circle-1(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 727

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the delay and remanded the appeals filed by Ecoboard Industries’ observing consultant’s error and financial distress, while stating that rejecting substantive claims on technicalities could compromise the delivery of justice.

The Tribunal thus set aside the case by remanding all matters to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. It also advised the assessee to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

ITAT quashes Penalty on Depreciation Claim: Section 271(1)(c) Not To be Applied for Honest Mistakes

SahajanandMedicalTechnologies vs Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-2(1)(2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 728

The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in a recent ruling, gave relief to the assessee, setting aside a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This case is on a matter relating to the assessment year 2006–07.

The ITAT bench, consisting of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member), quashed the penalty, ruling in favor of the assessee. The tribunal further asserted that penalties are not automatic and should be levied only when there is deliberate concealment or misrepresentation, not for genuine mistakes.

Cash Deposits during demonetization: ITAT remands matter to consider Evidence

Aryavysya SevaSanghamvs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 734

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded a matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to consider evidence in a case involving cash deposits during the demonetization period.

The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication and directed the CIT(A) to consider all evidence on record. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A) Order for Violating Rule 46A(3) in Admitting Fresh Evidence without AO’s Examination

ITO vsRajivgandhiGrameen Bigarsheti Path Sanstha Marydit CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 729

In a recent decision, the Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that when fresh evidence is admitted at the appellate stage, the Assessing Officer must be given an opportunity to examine it under Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) with instructions to provide the AO an opportunity to examine the fresh material and adjudicate the matter afresh.

Shaan EducationSocietyvs CIT (Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 733

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, which had denied tax exemption registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The order was delivered by the Bench comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. In conclusion, the Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration, observing that the applicant trust was not afforded a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard.

Reassessment without Tangible Material Invalid: ITAT deletes Rs.10 Lakh Cash Credit Addition

M/s. ShroffPropertiesPvt. Ltd vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 736

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition of Rs. 10 lakh made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the reassessment was carried out without any tangible material.

The tribunal also noted that the reassessment was carried out without any tangible material. The tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and the addition of Rs. 10 lakh was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ITAT gives Second Chance to Fruit Trader in Rs.28 Lakh Demonetization Case Over Procedural Lapses

Salim Ali DarugarvsITO.Ward 2(1)

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 732

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji Bench, has granted relief to a fruit trader by remanding the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication in a case involving cash deposits of Rs.28.01 lakh made during the demonetization period.

The Tribunal directed that the assessee be provided adequate opportunity to submit evidence and cooperate with the proceedings. In Conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Salim Ali Darugar, for statistical purposes and directed the lower authorities to provide him a fresh opportunity to present evidence.

Relief to Owner of Taj Hotel Group: ITAT Sets Aside Income Tax Reassessment action Initiated

The IndianHotelsCompany Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 737

In a ruling in favour of the owner of Taj Hotel Group, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a reassessment action initiated under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Since the initial assessment had already been finished in accordance with Section 143(3) of the Act in the Assessee's case, the ITAT annulled the reopening on the grounds that Clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act had been incorrectly invoked.

VishalInfraglobalPvt.Ltd. vs The DCIT Gandhinagar Circle Gandhinagar

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 741

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench “C”, has set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed appeals filed by Vishal Infraglobal Pvt. Ltd. on grounds of delay. The Tribunal held that where plausible and bona fide explanations for delay are provided, such appeals ought to be heard, especially when significant tax additions and penalties are involved.

Accordingly, the Bench condoned the delay in both appeals and set aside the CIT(A)’s orders. The matters have been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and to reassess the penalty based on the outcome of the reassessment.

The DCIT vsShriInderpal Singh CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 738

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleting the addition of Rs.1,00,12,500(1 crore) made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal accepted the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the cash found in lockers, recognizing it as part of joint family funds and traced to the sale proceeds of a property owned by a family member.

The Tribunal, after hearing arguments from both sides, concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings. It noted that no adverse inference had been drawn on similar issues concerning the joint family and that the Revenue had not recorded the statement of Moninder Kaur to refute the explanation. The Bench held that the explanation provided was consistent with the facts and supported by material placed on record.

Shri ThirupathiRaoNaineni vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 743

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded a matter involving Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) addition of Rs. 4.73 crore after the assessee claimed that he was not the owner of the property sold but merely a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder.

The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for earlier non-compliance and directed the payment to Telangana State Legal Aid Authorities at the Telangana High Court within a month. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT quashes CIT(A)’s Ex Parte Penalty Orders Due to Wrong Email Service

Sunita AshokbhaiSharmavs The I.T.O CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 744

In a recent decision, the Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned delay and set aside the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) ex parte order in penalty matters after finding that notices were sent to the wrong email.

The tribunal held that the penalty orders could not be decided separately at this stage, since the quantum proceedings had already been sent back to the AO for a fresh decision. The Tribunal thus quashed the existing penalty orders and remitted the matter back to the AO, granting liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after reassessment, if warranted.

DCIT-2(3)(1) VSNTTGlobal Data Centres Cloud Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 745

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which allowed depreciation as an alternative claim on finance lease rental payments citing Lessee’s right to claim depreciation.

The tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in the case of Cisco Systems, which confirmed that if the lessor was granted depreciation, then the lessee was entitled to claim the lease rent as expenditure under the Income Tax Act. The tribunal allowed the deduction of finance lease rental payment under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

Anushka Sanjay ShahvsITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 746

In a landmark ruling, the Mumbai bench of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that in view of Article 13 of DTAA between India and Singapore, the Capital Gains arising on mutual fund investments in hand of non residents is not taxable in India.

In the light of the provisions of India Singapore DTAA , the two member bench of Smt Beena Pillai, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member viewed that the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of shortterm capital gains of Rs. 1,35,66368/- under the DTAA between India and Singapore is allowable and allowed the appeal.

Cash Deposits during Demonetization: ITAT directs Normal 30 % Tax Rate citing S. 115BBE not Retrospective

ManjulabenMadhubhaiHapani vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 750

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the higher tax rate introduced under Section 115BBE could not be applied retrospectively in the case involving cash deposit during demonetization.

The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the normal tax rate and not the enhanced 60% rate under Section 115BBE. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to levy tax at the normal rate of 30% on unexplained cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Cash Deposits During Demonetization from Amul Parlour Sales: ITAT Accepts Source, Deletes Rs. 27.37 Lakh Addition

RajnikantVithaldasPatel vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 747

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition of Rs. 27,37,800 and ruled that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were explained as arising from regular cash sales at the assessee’s Amul Parlour.

The tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the cash deposits as arising from disclosed business sales. The tribunal observed that the AO had not provided any reasoning for rejecting the explanation or disproving the source of funds. The tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 27,37,800 made by the AO by accepting the source of Sales in Amul Parlour. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ITAT upholds invocation of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by PCIT: Twin Conditions of “Error” and “Prejudice to the Interest of Revenue” Satisfied

Starshine Land vs PCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 751

The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently upheld the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), on being certain that the requisite twin conditions of “error” and “prejudice to the interest of revenue” had been duly satisfied.

Thus it was held that the Assessing Officer committed an “error” of not making the addition of notional annual letting value on vacant units of building. Additionally, the twin conditions of “error” and “prejudice to the interest of the revenue” were satisfied which justified invocation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the revisional order passed by the PCIT was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Beena JashwantbhaiPatelvs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 749

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in a case where an assessment order was issued in the name of a deceased assessee.

The Tribunal also held that the assessee, if failed to comply with notices then the AO can initiate penalty proceedings as per provisions of the Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

AO Fails to Properly Examine Rs. 1.27 Cr Co-operative Society Deposits: ITAT upholds PCIT’s Revision Order

Pavan PrabhudyalBhadadavs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 748

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) due to the lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer (AO) in Rs. 1.27 Cr deposits by Co-operative Society.

The tribunal held that there was evident lack of inquiry by the AO and that the PCIT rightly invoked section 263. The tribunal observed that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the PCIT by invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

Advances given in Return for an Advantage by the Shareholder is not Dividend u/s 2(22)(e): ITAT

Subhash ChanderOberoivs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 752

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall under the purview of the “advance” in Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and shall not be considered as deemed dividend.

Thus, it was held that the advance amount in the present case was in return for an advantage conferred upon AGIV India by the assessee. Therefore, the transaction being completely of commercial nature would not fall within the ambit of Section 2 (22)(e) and was deleted from the total income. Hence, the appeal was allowed.

ITAT Allows NDTV’s Business Expense Claims, Quashes Section 14A Disallowance

NDTV Networks LtdvsDCIT, Circle-18(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 753

In a significant relief for NDTV, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly allowed the company’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2014–15. The Tribunal set aside disallowances related to business expenses and Section 14A, while remanding the issue of directors remuneration back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The appeal was accordingly partly allowed in favour of the appellant.

Failure to Establish Source of Income: ITAT restricts Addition of Income to 25%

ShriSundarrajanVenkateshkumar vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 754

The Chennai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently restricted the addition of unestablished income to 25% noting that the assessee failed to establish the source of the said income amounting to ₹13.39 lacs.

The bench comprising Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) and Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) observed that though the assessee contended that the deposits were sourced out of contractual receipts, the same was not established by him. Hence, the income was estimated at 25% of ₹13.39 lacs amounting to ₹3,34,750/-. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the assessee’s eligibility for deduction under Chapter VIA.

OceaneeringInternationalGMBH vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (InternationalTaxation) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 755

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) bench of Mumbai has ruled that the GST (Goods and Services Tax) collected by the foreign company is excluded from Gross Receipts for calculating income under Section 44BB of theIncome Tax Act, 1961.

Accordingly, the ruling was made in favour of assessee.

ITAT Allows Section 80P Deduction for Kerala University Co-op Society’s Bank Interest Income

The Income TaxOfficervs Kerala University Employees Co-operative Society Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 758

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled in favor of the Kerala University Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., granting it a deduction under Section 80P for interest income earned from investments with the District Co-operative Bank, State Bank of India (SBI), and the Treasury. The decision was made in an appeal against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A) Order on Kochin Co-op Society’s Cash Deposits, Demands Fresh Review,

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the bench, which consisted of George George K (Vice President) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member). The tribunal’s order effectively upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, granting the deduction for the co-operative society.

ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A) Order on Kochin Co-op Society's Cash Deposits, Demands Fresh Review

The Income TaxOfficervs Kochin Co-Operative SocietyLtd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 759

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in the case of Kochin Co-operative Society Ltd. regarding the unexplained cash deposits made by the society. The case pertains to the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

The matter has been sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, with directions to afford the Assessing Officer an opportunity to address the additional evidence and books of account submitted by the society. The appeals filed by the Revenue were partly allowed, and the matter is expected to be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the law.

ITAT Remands ₹5.41 Cr TDS Disallowance on US Remittance for Reassessment Under India-US DTAA

SunkuSatyanarayanaSanjay vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 760

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bengaluru recently set aside a ₹5.41 crore TDS disallowance on payments made to a US-based entity for business development and marketing services and directed it to reassess according to the provisions of India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (India-US DTAA). Sunku Satyanarayana Sanjay (assessee-appellant) was engaged in the export of software development and testing services through his proprietary concern, Versatiletech.

Sureshbhai RaghubhaiThorat vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 761

In a recent judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Surat upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to appear and respond despite repeated notices being issued. Sureshbhai Raghubhai Thorat (assessee-appellant) failed to file the income tax return for the Financial Year (FY) 2017-18. Due to this non-compliance, a survey was conducted by the Income Tax Department. During the survey, the authorities discovered a notarized agreement indicating the assessee’s ₹4.10 crore investment in a project.

National StockExchangeof India Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–7 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 757

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench has allowed the appeal filed by National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) against the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2015–16 and challenged the disallowance of Rs 170 crore contributed by NSE to the Core Settlement Guarantee Fund (Core SGF) maintained by the National Securities Clearing Corporation Ltd. (NSCCL).

Concluding that the AO had adopted one plausible view in law, the Tribunal ruled that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263. It held that the contribution to the Core SGF constituted an allowable business expense under section 37(1) and accordingly set aside the impugned order. In Conclusion, the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

No Income Tax Payable on New Flat Received in Exchange for Old One: ITAT deletes Addition u/s 56(2)(x)

Anil Dattaram PitalevsIncome Tax Officer-16(2)(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 762

In a recent ruling, The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) of Mumbai ruled that income tax is not applicable under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where a new flat is received in exchange for an old one as part of a redevelopment project. The bench deleted additions made by the authorities.

The bench decided that the tax authorities had erred in applying Section 56(2)(x) to the present case, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.

Dhanottam VasantLonkarvs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 763

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench has quashed the assessment order passed against the assessee on the ground that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued at an incorrect address and therefore not validly served within the prescribed statutory time limit.

The ITAT Bench comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) held that absence of valid service of notice under Section 143(2) vitiated the assessment proceedings, making them void ab initio. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order dated 31 March 2016 and allowed the assessee’s appeal.

Exempt LTCG under India-Mauritius DTAA cannot be Adjusted against Taxable Losses: ITAT

Bay Capital IndiaFundLimited vs Additional Director Of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 764

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench has held that long-term capital gains (LTCG) exempt under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) cannot be adjusted against taxable short-term or long-term capital losses incurred by the assessee.

The ITAT Bench comprising B.R. Baskaran (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) accordingly directed that the entire amount of Rs.38,48,55,851(38.48 crore) of long-term capital gains earned by the assessee should be treated as exempt. Further, it ordered that the assessee's taxable long-term and short-term capital losses should be carried forward to subsequent years without adjustment against the exempt income.

AldiablosInfotechPvt.Ltd. vs The I.T.O CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 767

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench has set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, holding that objections raised against mechanical reopening of assessment were not considered and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT Bench comprising Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahaodekar (Accountant Member) restored the appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In relation to Assessment Year 2017-18, where the assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144 based on alleged unexplained deposits during demonetisation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after affording the assessee an opportunity to explain the nature and source of the deposits.

SarandharUmashankarGupta vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 766

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the rejection of books of accounts of a road contractor, and confirmed the addition of ₹40 lakh on account of unverifiable and inadequately documented cash transactions.

The matter reached the ITAT, where the assessee, despite being given multiple opportunities, failed to appear or argue the case. After examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had rightly concluded that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of expenses, and the rejection of books was justified due to their inability to reflect a true and fair view of business affairs. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member).

ITAT Dismisses Department’s Appeal, Upholds 5% Bogus Purchase Addition & Deletes Penalty

Income Tax OfficervsBorda Brothers CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 768

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Surat Bench has dismissed the Department’s appeals, confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT Bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member, and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) dismissed both Department appeals, confirming relief to the assessee.

Asifiqbal IsmailJangdavs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 770

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Surat Bench has deleted an addition of Rs.3,45,000 made towards unexplained cash deposits, accepting the assessee’s explanation supported by agricultural income documents and proof of earlier bank withdrawals.

The division bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) after considering the submissions and documents on record, observed that the assessee had sufficiently discharged the primary onus of establishing the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in summarily rejecting the evidence without assigning specific reasons and deleted the entire addition of Rs.3,45,000 made under Section 69A.

ITAT Remands 80P Deduction Case to CIT(A), Directs Fresh Hearing for Co-op Society

Grameena SevaSahakariSangha Niyamita vs I T O, National e Assessment Centre CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 769

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Panaji Bench has set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing a fresh hearing on the eligibility of deduction claimed under Section 80P by the co-operative society.

The division bench comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and G.D. Padmahshali, (Accountant Member) set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee.

ITAT Grants Relief in Trust Registration Case Despite Procedural Defaults, Subject to Conditions

Surat SewaFoundationsvs The CIT(Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 772

In a recent decision, the Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned a decision by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ( CIT(E) ) that canceled the Appellant-Assessee trust’s registration, despite the trust’s delay in submitting the required documents.

However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity by remanding the matter to the CIT(E), subject to the condition that a cost of ₹10,000 be paid to the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Authority within two weeks

Surat SewaFoundationsvs The CIT(Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 772

In a recent ruling, the Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned a delay of 27 days and allowed reconsideration of a trust’s application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Referring to its earlier ruling in FI Foundation v. CIT(E) (2024), the tribunal held that the assessee’s application should be treated as having been filed within the extended time frame. The tribunal thus condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration.

ITAT Upholds Penalty Reduction u/s 275(1A) Despite Pending HC Appeal

The DCIT vsSunitSudhirbhai Chokshi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 771

In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, held that Section 275(1A) permits the Assessing Officer (AO) to revise penalties in line with assessment changes directed by appellate authorities or courts even though the appeal is still pending.

The tribunal held that section 275(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allows revision of penalty in line with appellate decisions. Since there was no stay from the High Court, the tribunal’s order remained binding. As a result, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s action and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

Relief for Bank of Baroda: ITAT Rules MAT Provisions u/s 115JB Not Applicable

M/s. Bank of BarodavsAddl. CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 773

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Bank of Baroda by holding that the Minimum Alternate Tax ( MAT ) provisions under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act,1961 do not apply to it.

It was observed that such banks were not required to prepare profit and loss accounts under Schedule VI of the Companies Act, and the provisions of Section 115JB could not be applied to them. The ITAT also noted that where there are two possible interpretations, the one favouring the taxpayer should be adopted. Relying on these precedents, the tribunal allowed the appeal and held that Section 115JB did not apply to the bank.

Brightech Valves&Controls Pvt. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 765

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench “SMC” has dismissed the appeal filed against the disallowance of a deduction claimed on a donation made to the Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research, citing that the donation was part of a bogus transaction.

The ITAT Bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) upheld the findings of the lower authorities, observing that the claim for deduction was not sustainable as it was based on donations made to an unapproved and bogus institution.

Win for WOW Entertainment: ITAT Deletes ₹1.44 Cr S.68 Addition Over Denial of Cross-Examination and Proven Loan Genuineness

Wow EntertainmentandMedia Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 774

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled in favor of WOW Entertainment and Media Private Limited, deleting a ₹1.44 crore addition under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 over denial of cross-examination and proven loan genuineness Wow Entertainment and Media Private Limited,appellant-assessee,filed its return of income on 14.03.2019, declaring ₹65,15,970.

Considering all the evidence, the ITAT held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and directed the AO to delete the addition. As a result, the other issues were treated as infructuous. In short,the appeal was allowed.

Mr. NateshanSampathNo.06 vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 775

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)deleted the penalty of Rs. 38.05 lakh imposed on the assessee due to the failure of the Assessing Officer (AO) to clearly specify the charge whether for under-reporting or misreporting of income.

The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court ruling in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax (international taxation) and others held that failure to specify the correct charge rendered the proceedings invalid. The Tribunal concluded by deleting the penalty of Rs. 38.05 lakh. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Vismruti SocialAndCharitable Trust vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 778

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the matter for fresh adjudication which is to be assessed at 5% Expenditure rule in a case where the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] had rejected the assessee trust’s application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, citing the presence of religious objects in the trust deed.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with specific directions to verify whether the assessee incurred religious expenses in excess of 5% of its total income. The tribunal held that if expenditure incurred found within permissible limits, the trust shall be eligible for 80G approval as per law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Bogus Purchases of ₹2.5 Crore: ITAT applies 4% GP Rate citing Taxpayer’s Declared Profit

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 777

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 4% of the purchase value.

The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) respectfully followed the judicial precedents which treated the gross profit as only the income of the assessee. The tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) reducing the gross profit at 4%. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

CIT(A) grants Relief on Interest Disallowance for Advances to Sister Concerns: ITAT Orders Verification of Funds Flow

Deputy CommissionerofIncome Tax vs Oswal Extrusion Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 780

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the CIT(A) to verify the funds flow statement before allowing relief in a case concerning disallowance of interest on advances made to sister concerns. Oswal Extrusion Ltd.

The Tribunal held that a funds flow statement should have been called for to confirm the claim of availability of non-interest-bearing funds at the time of the advances. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to verify the funds flow statement and also to verify whether the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for making the advances. The appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

REENA MITTAL vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 776

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the assessment framed under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, ruling it as void due to misapplied jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer (AO).

The tribunal following the decision of Arti Dhall v. DCIT held that the AO had not issued any notice under Section 153C therefore the assessment completed under Section 143(3) was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

M/s Ashta VinayakEstatevs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 779

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after observing that the CIT(A) failed to address the preliminary jurisdictional objections raised by the assessee against the assessment proceedings.

The tribunal set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes

ITAT sets aside Addition of Rs. 45.74 Lakh Cash Deposit during Demonetisation, Remands matter for fresh Examination

Trichur HeartHospitalLtd vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 781

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside an addition of Rs. 45.74 lakh made by the assessing officer (AO) on cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBN) during the demonetisation period. The bench has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination.

The ITAT, comprising of George George K. (Vice President) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member), restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, directing a proper review of the hospital's submissions and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the Cochin bench of the ITAT.

Relief to Oriental Insurance: ITAT Upholds Deletion of Rs. 21.36 Crore Disallowance u/s 14A

ACIT vs TheOrientalInsurance Co. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 782

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of Rs. 21.36 crore disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, the revenue has appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee had also filed cross-objections against the order of CIT (A) dated 15.09.2023 for the AY as mentioned earlier.

The ITAT bench, after going through the decisions of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court, upheld the decision of the CIT(A). The ITAT, comprising Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member), dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, and the cross objections filed by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

UGS Finance Pvt. LtdvsDCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 783

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld a penalty of Rs. 95,10,463 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the assessee, UGS Finance Pvt. Ltd. for concealing income through bogus share capital transactions amounting to Rs. 2.65 crore by observing that it was a clear-cut case of concealment.

The ITAT comprising of Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Madhumita Roy held that the CIT(A) had rightly upheld the addition of Rs. 2.65 crores in the hands of the assessee as bogus and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by observing that it was a ‘clear-cut case of concealment of income.’ In conclusion, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the bench.

Sudhanshu RastogivsACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 784

The Lucknow bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently restored a case of an assessee to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the absence of any clear findings on the merits of addition of income.

In order to maintain a fair play between both the parties, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision on merits. Thus, the grounds of the appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. Hence, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

“Adequate and Effective Opportunity of Being Heard must be Provided”: ITAT Remands the Case to Assessing Officer

Swastik EnterprisesvsITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 785

The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) passed an order remanding the case of the assessee to the Assessing Officer (AO) with directions to pass an order after providing effective and adequate opportunity of being heard.

The matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer along with direction to pass an order after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard. Hence, the order of the CIT (A) was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Opportunity of Being Heard Must be Provided: ITAT Remits Ex-Parte Order to AO

SOHANVIR SINGH vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 787

The New Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remitted the case of the Assessee back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after giving to the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 05.09.2023 relating to assessment year 2017-18.

The bench comprising Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) and Sudhir Pareek (Judicial member), on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice remitted the issues in dispute back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with directions to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.Hence, the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Inder Chand BajajvsDCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 788

The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed an assessment order on the ground of an erroneous and non-speaking approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In the present case, it was observed that there is no mention of any draft assessment order or assessment records or seized materials in the approval letter. Thus, it was held that the approval memo granting omnibus approval without any thought process vitiates the assessment order. Hence, the assessment order was quashed on the ground of the erroneous approval and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Parag Dave vs TheDeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 790

In a recent judgment, the Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Authority (ITAT) set aside the deduction claim of an assessee for the donation made by him to an unapproved scientific authority.

The tribunal thus concluded that the assessee knowingly contributed to an unapproved institution and thus proceeded to uphold the disallowance of the deduction made by AO and CIT(A).

ITAT rejects Income Tax Department’s Algorithm-Based Tax Addition in Cash Deposit Made During Demonetization Period

Income Tax OfficervsBimal Jewellers CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 789

In a recent ruling, the Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s decision to delete the ₹1.63 crore addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on cash deposits during the demonetization period, holding that the addition based on algorithmic analysis and speculative assumptions lacked concrete evidence.

The bench pointed out that the AO had made the addition based on assumptions and a statistical comparison without identifying any specific issues with the assessee’s records. The tribunal thus concluded that the addition was not supported by concrete evidence and upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to delete it.

M/s SaveryTransportFinance Limited vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 794

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of Rs. 14.84 lakhs made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the cash deposits in question were duly recorded in the books of account maintained by a registered non-banking financial company (NBFC), Savery Transport Finance Ltd.

The tribunal explained that once the books are maintained and not rejected by the AO, and receipts are explained with business records, addition under Section 69A was unjustified. The tribunal deleted the Rs. 14.84 lakh addition under Section 69A. The appeal was partly allowed.

ITAT Sets Aside Rejection of 12A Registration After Finding Trust’s Objects Not Confined to Caste

Patidar SamajTrustKhajurdi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 793

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad has overturned the rejection of a Trust’s application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ruling that the trust’s charitable activities were not restricted to a specific caste. The bench, comprising Judicial Member Suchitra Kamble and Accountant Member Narendra Prasad Sinha, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to reconsider the matter in light of legal precedents.

The ITAT partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, instructing the CIT (E) to reassess the application while considering the cited judgments and granting the trust a fresh hearing.

Sapphire FoodsIndiaLimited vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 795

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, clarifying that disallowance is permissible even in the absence of exempt income from Assessment Year 2022–23 onwards, following the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2022.

The tribunal ruled that the assessee’s reliance on earlier decisions was misplaced, as those were for prior assessment years before the statutory amendment. The tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 16,38,260 made under Section 14A and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

ITAT Ahmedabad Orders Rectification After Wrong Consideration of Depreciation as Net Profit

M/s. GujaratStateAviation Infrastructure Company Limited vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 792

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad has directed rectification after finding that depreciation was wrongly considered as net profit in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017–18.

ITAT Bench consisting of Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) accepted the submissions made by the assessee. Observing that the issue pertained to a rectifiable mistake, the Bench directed the matter to be referred to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for examination and passing of an appropriate order. The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes by the ITAT

AO Provided Only 6 Days to Reply to Notice Instead of Mandatory 7 u/s 148A(b): ITAT Quashes Reassessment

Satish Kumar AgrawalvsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 796

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the reassessment proceedings due to the Assessing Officer (AO) violating the mandatory statutory timeline prescribed under Section 148A(b) by allowing only six days instead of the minimum required seven for filing a reply.

The tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings stood vitiated due to the violation of statutory procedure and accordingly quashed the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the subsequent reassessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The case was restored to the file of the AO with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings and appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT Partly Sets Aside Order u/s 263 for Improper Mandatory Direction to Add Accommodation Entries

Sunil PoonamchandSarafvs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 791

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad has partly set aside an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) improperly directed mandatory addition of accommodation entries without due verification.

Accordingly, the ITAT quashed the part of the PCIT's order which directed the Assessing Officer to make the addition and sustained only the direction to pass a fresh assessment order after due verification. In Conclusion, The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Assessment Order Served via Email Landed in Spam Folder: ITAT Condones 191-Day Delay in Filing Appeal

Sarika Dadaso ZendevsITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 797

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a delay of 191 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] after noting that the assessment order had been served via email and had landed in the assessee’s spam folder, resulting in the delay.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions to provide the assessee adequate opportunity to present her case. The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.