Vivaa TradecomPvt.Ltd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 804

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, overturned a revision order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) against Vivaa Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., ruling that the tax authority overstepped its powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case involved alleged bogus transactions in steel scrap trading during the 2015-16 assessment year.

The tribunal concluded that the PCIT’s order was unsustainable, as the AO had taken a legally plausible view after due verification. The ITAT allowed Vivaa Tradecom’s appeal, setting aside the PCIT’s revisionary order.

ITAT Sets Aside CIT(A) Direction on TDS Recalculation, Says Original Demand Already Nullified

Emaar IndiaLimited vsDCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 803

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Delhi Bench has set aside an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to recalculate the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) demand under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT ruled that the original demand had already been nullified by the Delhi High Court, making the CIT(A)’s directions untenable.

ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed Emaar India's appeal, concluding that the CIT(A) had overstepped its authority by directing a recalculation after the original demand was nullified.

CeraSanitaryware Ltdvs The DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 802

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench has ruled in favor of Cera Sanitaryware Limited, deleting a disallowance of Rs.4,70,331 made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) improperly invoked Rule 8D without recording valid dissatisfaction with the assessee’s suo moto disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.

In its final order, the ITAT directed the deletion of both disallowances, allowing Cera Sanitaryware’s appeal in full.

Reassessment Without Proper Consideration of Evidence: ITAT Restores Rs.15.88 Lakh Addition for Fresh Verification

AmitHasmukhbhai Shahvs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 800

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored a reassessment case to the Assessing Officer (AO) observing that the AO failed to properly consider the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee in relation to cash deposits amounting to Rs. 15.88 lakh.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO with directions to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing and to re-examine the evidence submitted before passing a reasoned order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

VAT Liability Not Disallowable u/s 43B If Not Claimed As Deduction In Profit & Loss Account: ITAT

Dy.Commissioner ofIncome Tax-1(1) vs Grand Motors CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 801

In a significant ruling, the Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that unpaid VAT liability cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if it has not been claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account. The decision was rendered in the appeal filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur against Grand Motors, Raipur, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

The ITAT Bench comprising Ravish Sood ( Judicial Member ) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue’s appeal. Consequently, the cross-objection filed by the assessee also became infructuous and was dismissed accordingly.

Man Diesel andTurboIndia vs The ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 805

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad, has nullified a tax assessment order framed against Man Diesel and Turbo India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Man Turbo India Pvt. Ltd.), ruling that the assessment was invalid as it targeted a non-existent entity due to a corporate amalgamation. The bench quashed the proceedings, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019).

The Revenue contended that the assessee’s participation in proceedings barred jurisdictional objections under Section 124(3), but the ITAT dismissed this, clarifying that the issue pertained to the assessment’s fundamental validity, not jurisdictional competence. With the assessment quashed, the tribunal declined to address the merits of disallowances totaling Rs.2.86 crore (provisions, material costs, and PF contributions).

Presence of Incriminating Material on Record: ITAT Upholds Income Tax Proceedings U/s 153A

SuryavanshiVenturaPvt. Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 807

The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the initiation of income tax proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of presence of incriminating material and information on record.

Thus, the findings of the CIT(A) were upheld and not interfered with. The assessment order completed in pursuance of Section 153A of the Act and the notice was held valid in the eyes of law. Hence, the appeal of the assessee pertaining to AY 2009-10 was dismissed.

SuryavanshiVenturaPvt. Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 807

The New Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently quashed an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer holding that the assessment year was beyond the ten-year outer ceiling limit prescribed by Section 153A of the Income Tax Act,1961.

Hence, the assessment order was quashed and the appeal was allowed.

AO Estimates Profit without Rejecting Books, Relies on Faulty Comparison with Sister Concern: ITAT deletes ₹5.82 Crore Addition

ITO vs AmbienceDevelopments CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 810

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of Rs. 5.82 crore, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to reject the developer’s books of accounts and relied on improper comparisons with a sister concern.

The tribunal ruled that the AO’s action of estimating profits without rejecting the books and relying on improper comparisons was unjustified. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order and deleted Rs. 5.82 crore addition. The revenue appeal was dismissed.

AvishkarShikshan Sanstha VS CIT (Exemption)

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 811

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune bench imposed a fine of ₹2,500 on a trust led by a Chartered Accountant (CA) for failing to respond to multiple notices regarding the registration of a trust. Despite being given a final chance to submit the necessary documents for trust registration, the delay in compliance resulted in a penalty.

The bench also noted that the secretary of the trust, who had filed the affidavit, was a Chartered Accountant and should have been well aware of the legal obligations. Despite that, there was an undue delay in compliance. Taking a serious view of this, the tribunal imposed a penalty of ₹2,500 and directed the assessee to file the necessary documents without any further delay.

ITAT Condones 450-Day Delay in Income Tax Appeal Filing Due to Former CA’s Oversight

RedstoneTextile Private Limited vs Asst. CIT, Central Circle 5(4)

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 812

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a delay of 450 days in filing an appeal, attributing it to the negligence of the former Chartered Accountant (CA) in failing to inform the assessee.

The tribunal referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987), highlighting that justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. It held that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. Thus, the ITAT condoned the 450-day delay and returned the case to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

CIT(E) Rejected 12AB Registration by Relying on S.13(1)(b): ITAT Restores 12AB Registration Application for fresh adjudication

ShreeNishkalank Mahadev vs Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 814

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] for fresh adjudication after ruling that the rejection of 12AB registration by invoking Section 13(1)(b) only at the time of assessment and not at time of grant of registration.

The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the file of CIT(E) for de-novo consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate on the merits of the trust’s activities and not deny registration solely on the grounds cited in the original rejection. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Aakash NidhiBuilders & Developers vs ITO – 25(2)(1)

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 813

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for profits derived from Wings A to F of a housing project completed within the prescribed time limit and held that the additional Wing-G, which was completed later, constitutes a separate project and is not eligible for deduction under the same section.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IB(10) for Wings A to F which were duly completed before the cutoff date. The tribunal directed the AO to compute deduction claimed by the assessee. The tribunal also set aside the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Allotments to Relatives Disputed: ITAT Remands Section 80-IB(10) Deduction Claim for Verification

Aakash NidhiBuilders & Developers vs ITO – 25(2)(1)

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 813

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded a matter involving a claim for deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for verification of alleged allotments of residential units to relatives of existing flat owners, in possible violation of statutory conditions.

The Tribunal directed the AO to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present case and documents. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with these directions. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT rejects Price-Rigging Allegations on Penny Stock Transactions Due to Lack of Evidence

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sh. Bal Kishan Arora

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 815

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the benefit of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) on penny stock transactions, rejecting the Revenue’s claims of price rigging due to a lack of concrete evidence and confirming the genuineness of transactions.

Since the department failed to provide any new evidence to justify the addition, the tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the department’s appeal.

Income TaxOfficer vs Tata Teleservices Limited

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 817

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that interest payments by Tata Teleservices to China Development Bank (CDB) are exempt under Article 11(3) of the India-China Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The tribunal held that the issue is fully covered by the earlier decision in favor of the assessee. The tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. The tribunal reaffirmed the interest payments made by Tata Teleservices Limited to China Development Bank are exempt from tax under Article 11(3) of the India-China DTAA.

No Income Tax Addition can be made Solely Based on Hypothecated Stock Disclosure to Bank: ITAT

Raj KumarPuglia vs ITO, Ward - 3(4)

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 818

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that income additions cannot be made solely based on the difference between stock disclosed to a bank and that recorded in audited accounts.

The tribunal explained that without physical verification or contrary evidence, no addition could be sustained based merely on inflated stock statements filed before banks. The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.

ITAT Restores Trust’s 12A Registration, Imposes ₹2,500 Cost on CA for Negligence

GodavariShikshan Mandal, Nashik vs CIT (Exemption), Pune

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 819

In a recent judgment, the Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored an application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of a Trust, while imposing a ₹2,500 cost for the negligence of the Chartered Accountant’s (CA) in ensuring compliance.

After hearing both sides, the bench led by Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and R. K. Panda (Vice President) observed that the CIT(E) had given necessary time for the assessee, yet they still failed to submit relevant documents. However, in the interest of justice, the bench restored the matter to the CIT(E), directing the assessee to submit documents without adjournments. The tribunal also imposed a ₹2,500 cost for negligence, noting the secretary’s CA qualification.

Shri Laxmi RoadLines vs Pr.CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 822

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Panaji Bench has dismissed an appeal filed by Shri Laxmi Road Lines after the Belagavi-based transport company opted to settle its tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme(DTVSVS), 2024. The case pertained to an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2017-18.

The order was pronounced by Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and GD Padmashali (Accountant Member) on February 6, 2025. The ruling brings closure to the tax dispute that had been pending before the appellate tribunal, with the transport company now resolving its differences with the tax department through the government's dispute settlement mechanism.

The MercantileCo-op Credit Society Ltd vs ITO-Ward-6 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 823

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Panaji Bench has set aside an ex parte order against The Mercantile Co-op Credit Society Ltd., directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to re-examine the denial of Rs.1.1 crore deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Panaji bench ruled that the cooperative society deserved another opportunity to present its case, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

ITO vs IntimeVanijya Private Limited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 824

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata bench has dismissed an appeal filed by the Income Tax Department against Intime Vanijya Private Limited, citing that the disputed tax amount of Rs. 7.97 lakh fell below the Rs. 60 lakh threshold prescribed under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 09/2024.

This decision comes as part of the government's ongoing efforts to streamline tax litigation and reduce the backlog of cases in appellate forums. The CBDT's revised monetary limits are designed to ensure that the Department focuses its resources on high-value disputes while avoiding protracted litigation over smaller tax amounts. The order brings closure to this particular dispute while preserving the Department's rights to pursue the matter if higher stakes emerge in future assessments.

Late Sh. BrijKishoreKochar vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 821

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the ₹1.33 Cr addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO), stating that a confession made by the assessee without corroborative evidence cannot justify an addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal noted that the retracted statement lacked evidentiary value without corroborative material. The bench also observed that no incriminating documents were recovered from the assessee's premises. Based on these observations, the tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal and set aside the additions made by the AO.

Income TaxOfficerWard-3(3)(1) vs Arvindbhai R Nanavati HUF 398 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 820

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, held that the addition made under Section 68/69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, could not be sustained once the details of the creditors were verified. The tribunal thus set aside the ₹1.20 crore addition.

The ITAT observed that the Revenue failed to disprove the remand findings or provide contrary evidence. Citing the precedent of CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008), it held that once creditor details are verified, additions under Section 68/69A of the Act cannot stand. The tribunal thus dismissed the revenue’s appeal and upheld the decision of the CIT(A)

AanyaLearningFoundation vs Commissioner of IncomeTax (Exemptions)

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 825

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Lucknow bench has overturned an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) that denied registration under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act to Aanya Learning Foundation, citing violation of natural justice principles and absence of material proving non-educational activities. The tribunal directed fresh consideration of the foundation’s application for tax-exempt status.

The order remands the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) with instructions to re-examine the application afresh, particularly verifying whether the foundation subsequently obtained registration in later years. The ITAT clarified that its decision shouldn't be construed as automatic approval, leaving the merits for the CIT to determine after proper evaluation. The fresh proceedings will determine whether Aanya Learning Foundation meets the stringent criteria for Section 10(23C) benefits accorded to educational institutions.

Violation of Natural Justice: ITAT restores Addition on Demonetization Sales for Fresh Adjudication

AnupamaJewellery vsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 829

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored an addition made on account of demonetization-period sales to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing violation of natural justice due to an ex-parte dismissal of the assessee’s appeal without addressing the grounds raised.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter to its file for a de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

HUF’s Share Transaction Dispute Concluded as ITAT Accepts Vivad Se Vishwas Settlement

Raghav Agarwal(HUF) vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 830

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) after accepting the settlement of a long-pending tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The case involved additions of Rs. 84.85 lakh made by tax authorities regarding long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT bench, comprising Kul Bharat (Vice President) and Anadee Nath Misshra (Accountant Member), permitted the withdrawal of the appeal while granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the settlement failed. The tribunal did not examine the merits of the case, as the matter had been resolved through the government's dispute resolution scheme.

GurushriUmedpuri vs CIT(Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 837

The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently imposed costs amounting to ₹5000 on an assessee charitable trust who failed to comply with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption) seeking requisite information from the assessee.

However, considering that the assessee was engaged in charitable activities, the bench granted one last opportunity to the assessee ro represent its case before the CIT (E). Further directions were passed to the assessee to not seek any adjournment and ensure compliance with the order of the CIT (E). Hence, the appeal was allowed subject to costs.

Munjal MrugeshJaykrishna vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 833

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) deleted the addition of ₹95.56 Lakh as on-money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act,1961, ruling that the addition lacked proper verification.

Given these points, the ITAT deleted the addition, stating it lacked a valid basis. The issue of reopening under section 148 was deemed unnecessary. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Unexplained Investment in Property: ITAT Deletes Rs. 13.73 Lakh Addition After Verifying Source from Fixed Deposits

Uday RameshNayak vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 835

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)deleted the Rs. 13.73 lakh addition for unexplained investment in a property purchase after verifying the source from fixed deposits.

The appellate tribunal concluded that the source of the investment, amounting to Rs. 13.72 lakhs, was fully explained as coming from the maturity of the fixed deposits held by the assessee’s wife.The additions were deleted. In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Jyoti SantoshParakh Swaraj Cement Distributors vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 826

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench has allowed an appeal filed by Jyoti Santosh Parakh Swaraj Cement Distributors, setting aside an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that had upheld tax additions related to cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The tribunal found the CIT(A)’s order lacked proper reasoning and directed a fresh examination of the case.

The tribunal emphasized that appellate authorities must provide clear findings when adjudicating disputes. It directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the case, consider the new evidence, and issue a reasoned order after seeking a remand report from the AO. The decision was pronounced by Manish Borad, Accountant Member. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, meaning the case will now return to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in line with the tribunal's directions.

ITAT Strikes Down Reassessment: Rs50 Lakh Threshold Not Met for Late Notice

DilipkumarLaxminarayanLohiya vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 827

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench has quashed a reassessment proceeding initiated by the Income Tax Department, ruling that the tax effect in the case did not meet the Rs 50 lakh threshold required for reopening past cases. The decision came in response to an appeal filed against a late reassessment notice, which the tribunal found unsustainable under the current monetary limits set by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).

The order was pronounced by Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member. The decision reinforces the binding nature of CBDT’s monetary limits on tax litigation, ensuring that only high-value disputes proceed to appellate stages. The tribunal’s ruling brings finality to the case, relieving the assessee from further litigation on the matter.

KrupalVikrambhai Patel vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 836

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the penalty of Rs. 10.22 lakh imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, after observing that the assessment order had already been remanded for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal ruled that the penalty matter deserved to be set aside. The tribunal observed that the matter may be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.The tribunal remanded the penalty issue to the file of the AO for fresh consideration upon completion of the revised assessment proceedings. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Additions u/s 69A Set Aside: ITAT Directs Fresh Assessment Allowing Taxpayer to File Additional Evidence

TosifbhaiTajdin Halani (Individual) 42-43 vs The Dy.CIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 832

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit additional evidence.

The Tribunal directed to ensure fair opportunity must be granted and also directed to permit the admission of additional evidence. The appeal of the assessee was thus allowed for statistical purposes.

Adani PowerLtd. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 831

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, after holding that it was issued in the name of a non-existent entity.

The Tribunal also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., relied on by the Department, by observing that in that case, the amalgamation was not disclosed during the relevant proceedings, whereas in the present case, timely intimation was made. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ITAT Quashes ₹84 Lakh Addition Made u/s 69A, accepts Assessee’s Explanation on Cheque Discounting for Working Capital

NirmaladeviShreegopal Kanodia vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 839

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to assessee, Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia by deleting an addition of ₹84,00,669 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s contention that the impugned transactions were genuine short-term financing arrangements facilitated through post-dated cheques, and not unexplained cash credits or accommodation entries.

The Bench comprising of Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President), Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) emphasized that the three key ingredients, identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness had been established by the assessee. It held that the Revenue failed to rebut this with corroborate evidence and thus the additions could not be sustained. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee and deleted the entire addition of ₹84,00,669 under Section 69A.

The BhatiaGeneral Hospital vs DCIT (Exemption)-2(1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 840

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that income earned from a pharmacy and chemist shop operated within a hospital is not a separate business activity, but rather an integral and incidental component of providing medical relief.

The bench comprising of Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan (Judicial Member), applied the principle that “what is incidental to the dominant object of a charitable institution cannot be considered a separate business,” and directed the AO to delete the addition made under Section 11(4A). As a result, the appeal was allowed.

VishalVasudevbhai Modi vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 834

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination, directing the assessee to submit final evidence regarding unexplained bank deposits and income declared under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY).

The appellate tribunal directed the AO to give the assessee one final chance to submit documents explaining the deposits, transfers, and any income declared under PMGKY.In short,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Is Trust’s Registration u/s 12A a Prerequisite for Grant of Approval u/s 80(G)(5)(iv)(B)?: ITAT remits Matter

Nisa Foundationvs CIT(Exemption) Ahmedabad CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 838

The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently rejected an application of an assessee for approval under Section 80G (5)(iv)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the order of the CIT(E) rejecting registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act, 1961 was set aside and fresh opportunity of being heard was granted to explain the fulfillment of conditions stipulated under the said section.

In view of the above order, the bench also set aside the order for rejection of approval under Section 80G(5)(iv)(B) for the reason that registration under Section 12A was a prerequisite condition for grant of approval. The CIT(E) was directed to re-adjudicate the issue of approval under Section 80G after deciding the matter regarding registration under Section 12A of the Act, 1961. Hence, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

M/s. FlovelEnergy Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 841

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed an appeal after the assessee opted to settle the pending dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme (VSVS), 2024. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal as withdrawn, granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration in case the scheme application does not attain finality.

The Tribunal, comprising M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member, further directed that such restoration, if needed, would be entertained only upon a formal application by the assessee. This approach aligns with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the taxpayer's rights remain protected despite procedural withdrawal. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

Rs.14.93 Crores Addition u/s 68 for Share Capital Premium: ITAT Deletes AO’s Addition, Upholds Genuineness of Funds

East DelhiLeasing P.Ltd. vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 842

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) deleted the AO’s addition of Rs. 14.93 crores under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961,for share capital premium, ruling that the funds came from genuine sources.

the ITAT decided that the AO’s use of Section 68 was wrong. It ruled that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were clear, and ordered the addition under Section 68 to be deleted.In short,the appeal was allowed.

Genuineness of Loans u/s 68: ITAT Orders Fresh Verification of Creditworthiness and Transactions

DushyantsinhYadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) restored the addition of ₹12.83 lakh under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961, for fresh verification, as the assessee had submitted Permanent Account Number(PAN), Income Tax Return(ITR), confirmations, and bank statements to prove the creditworthiness of lenders and genuineness of the transactions.

In short,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Disallowance of Interest Payments for Non-Deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia): ITAT Remands Matter to AO for Verification of Form 26A

DushyantsinhYadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the submission of Form 26A regarding the disallowance of interest payments under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act,1961, for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source(TDS).

The two member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal(Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar(Accountant Member) sent the matter back to the AO to verify Form 26A. It held that if the assessee submitted a valid certificate showing that M/s H J Associates had paid tax on the interest, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be deleted. In short,theappeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

DushyantsinhYadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)held that disallowance under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable when no deduction is claimed and the liability is reported as a current liability.

In short, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Unexplained Opening Cash Balance of Rs. 22.19 Lakh u/s 69: ITAT Remands Matter to AO

DushyantsinhYadvendrasinh Chudasama vs The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 843

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer(AO) for further verification of the unexplained opening cash balance of Rs. 22.19 lakh under Section 69 of Income Tax Act,1961.

In the interest of justice, the appellate tribunal sent the matter back to the AO for further verification. The AO was instructed to review the balance sheet, cash book, and other documents to confirm the genuineness of the cash balance. If the balance was carried over from previous years and reflected in the books, the addition under Section 69 would be removed. The AO was asked to decide the matter again, giving the assessee a fair chance to be heard. In short,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

FTS Classification in Management and Administrative Services: ITAT deletes ALP Adjustment Due to Lack of Technology Transfer

Bio-RedLaboratories(India) P. Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 845

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the Arm’s Length Price ( ALP ) adjustment made in respect of payments for AP management and administrative services, holding that the services did not involve a transfer of technology and therefore did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) .

the ITAT determined that the payments for information technology and administrative services were not Fees for Technical Services under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer(AO) to delete the charges. Thus, the appeal was allowed.

Smt. AshrafiDevi Shiksha Samiti vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 846

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) directed the Assessing Officer(AO) to grant relief after exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of Income Tax Act,1961, was approved, holding that the benefit could not be denied solely due to lack of registration under Section 12A.

The tribunal decided to return the matter to the AO to implement the approval and allow the exemption under section 10(23C). The ITAT directed the AO to grant the necessary relief to the assessee. In short,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT Cuts Estimated 20% Profit Rate to 12.5% in Bogus Purchase Case Calling It Excessive, remanded for Recomputation

HardevRecycling Private Limited vs Assessment Unit, Delhi CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 848

In a recent decision, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench, held that the estimated profit rate of 20% applied on account of unsubstantiated purchases was excessive. The tribunal reduced the rate to 12.5%, granting partial relief to the assessee, and remanded the matter for recomputation.

In light of these facts, the tribunal found that applying a 20% NP rate to be excessive and directed that a more reasonable NP rate of 12.5% be applied to the total sales of ₹8.7 crore. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed by the tribunal, and the matter was remanded to the AO for recomputation based on the revised NP rate.

The DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax vs Pinac Stock Brokers Private Limited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 847

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2.72 crore as quantum assessment was deleted by the ITAT.

The tribunal accepted the submissions made by the assessee counsel that there was no stay application filed by the revenue before Gujarat High Court in order to stay the operation of tribunal’s order. The tribunal held that there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as devoid of merits.

‘No Change in Facts from AY 2013-14 TDS Ruling’: ITAT Relies on Consistency Principle to Dismiss Revenue’s Appeal

Asstt.CIT(International Taxation) VS Allscripts (India) Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 849

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) relied on the consistency principle to dismiss the revenue’s appeal, as there was no change in facts from the assessment year (AY) 2013-14 TDS (Tax Deducted at Source) ruling in the assessee’s own case. In this case, the Revenue had appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the (AY) 2014-15.

The ITAT, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the order of CIT(A).

Gujarat StateFinancial Services Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 898

The Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) donations made to the Mukhyamantri Shree Swachchta Nidhi, Gujarat are eligible for deduction under Section 80G Of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was delivered in response to an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21.

The ITAT also cited the ruling in PCIT vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., where it was held that donations for CSR made to eligible funds could be claimed under Section 80G despite being disallowed under Section 37. Since Mukhyamantri Shree Swachchta Nidhi, Gujarat is not among the specifically excluded funds, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was rightfully entitled to the deduction.

Tandem DataProcessingPvt. Ltd. vs ADIT

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 897

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently quashed an income tax disallowance, on observing that a one-day delay in crediting employee contributions to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) accounts were caused by server errors and technical glitches.

Observing precedence, the Ahmedabad ITAT determined that the addition/disallowance of 14,32,177 on account of delayed contribution to the EPF/ESIC was liable to be deleted.

CIT(A) Mistakenly Treated Private Company as Cooperative Society u/s 80P: ITAT remands Case

Indian ChainPvt. Ltdvs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 899

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and directed a fresh examination, observing that Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is meant exclusively for cooperative societies, was mistakenly applied to a private limited company.

The tribunal, comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), thus condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the order passed by the CIT(A), and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

Gujarat StateFinancial Services Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 898

In a recent decision, the Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that any revised disallowance claim under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act must be supported by a revised auditor’s certificate in Form 3CA, failing which the revised claim is liable to be rejected.

The bench of T R Senthilkumar (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) stated that a mere submission of alternate computations without amending the audit report or providing a revised Form 3CA does not entitle the assessee to seek a reduction in disallowance already admitted in the return of income.

Syed HussainSyed Asifvs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 903

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently remanded a case relating to a ₹2.75 crore capital gains exemption claimed where the assessee failed to submit the requisite documents during the initial proceedings, but did so before the appellate tribunal only.

The two‐member bench, Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member, and Manu Kumar Giri, Judicial Member, observed that the appellant had not submitted the requisite documents before the lower authorities. In the view of substantial justice, the Tribunal proceeded to set aside the impugned order while remitting the matter back to the file of the AO for denovo assessment on merits, after receiving evidence and provision of opportunity for hearing to the appellant.

ITAT Dismisses Income Tax Appeal After Opting for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

Shri SalmanAbdulrazak Patel vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 900

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee’s appeal as withdrawn following a formal opt-in to the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, with liberty to restore.

However, to protect the assessee’s interest, the bench added that if the benefit under the scheme was not eventually availed of due to any bona fide reason, the assessee would retain the right to seek restoration of the appeal

No Addition u/s 153A for Completed Assessments without Incriminating Material Found During Search: ITAT

SaurabhAgrotech Pvt.Ltd. vs DCITCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 904

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be made in respect of completed assessments unless incriminating material is found during a search, and accordingly deleted the addition made to Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.’s income on account of Dharmada (charity collections).

The tribunal held that the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was squarely applicable and binding. Since the assessments were completed and there was no incriminating material found during the search in the case of the assessee, the additions made under Section 153A were unsustainable. The tribunal allowed both appeals, deleted the additions on account of Dharmada, and ruled that no further adjudication on merits was necessary.

Unexplained Cash Deposits during Demonetization: ITAT Directs AO to Verify Books of Accounts and Cash Sales of Diamond and Gold Dealer

M/s. V NExports vsThe ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 906

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification of books of accounts and cash sales of Diamond and Gold Dealer in the dispute involving cash deposit during demonetization.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the books of accounts, stock details, and supporting documents and pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Reopening Based on Mere Change of Opinion Invalid: ITAT Quashes ₹4.96 Crore Income Tax Addition

GCK StockPrivateLimited vs The ITOCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 908

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the reassessment proceedings, ruling that the reopening of assessment based on a mere change of opinion was invalid under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal quashed the reassessment and held the reopening notice invalid. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, rendering the addition of Rs. 4.96 crore infructuous.

Jai BholaTrading Co.Pvt. Ltd. vs IT Ward 9(3) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 901

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that share capital received from previous Assessment Years could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench also observed that ₹1.33 crore was received in earlier AYs, so Section 68 of the Act did not apply. Relying on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Jatia Investment Co. vs. CIT (1994), the bench stated that only credits for the relevant year can be examined under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench concluded that the CIT(A) had erred in making the decision and directed the AO to delete the entire addition of ₹1.43 crore.

ACIT vs M/sDelightful Estate Developers LLPCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 902

The assessee, Delightful Estate Developers LLP, filed its return for the Annual Year (AY) 2017-18, declaring nil income. Later, in May 2018, tax authorities conducted a search on the Banka Group. During this search, they discovered that Mukesh Banka and his companies were involved in providing accommodation entries. The tax department alleged that the assessee had received ₹68 lakh in such bogus loans from five shell companies linked to the Banka Group.

Toyota BoshokuAutomotive India Private Limited. vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 909

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rejected the tax department’s adjustment that benchmarked royalty payments to NIL, ruling that Toyota Boshoku Automotive India’s payments to its parent company in Japan were justified and consistent with past assessments.

The tribunal ruled that the benchmarking of royalty at NIL was unjustified. It directed the TPO to determine the Arm’s Length Price using the TNMM, as done in prior years, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.

M/s. SaviyntIndiaPvt. Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 905

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 38-day delay in filing an appeal by Saviynt India Pvt. Ltd., holding that the delay was due to a genuine misapprehension by the company’s Chartered Accountant (CA) who was engaged in foreign tax filings and failed to recognize the finality of an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal held that the explanation offered was credible and supported by an affidavit. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the matter on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case remanded for fresh consideration.

ITAT Allows Rs. 1.3 Crore LTCG Exemption to Husband-Wife Despite Sale of 2 Properties

Smt. TejalKaushal Shah vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 910

In a recent case, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) tax exemption of Rs. 1.3 Crore granted to the husband and wife despite considering the sale of the 2 properties, which ultimately was for the purchasing of joint property.

The tribunal found no explicit prohibition on the assessee claiming the deduction on a jointly purchased property. The ITAT ruled that courts have adopted a liberal stance regarding the assertion that Sections 54 and 54F are advantageous provisions that should be construed broadly in the assessee's favor and that deductions shouldn't be arbitrarily rejected on the basis of excessive technicality.

Fruit Seller Delayed Filing Appeal Against Rs. 78 Lakh Addition Due to COVID-19: ITAT Remands Matter

Mohd. FarooqueMohd.Rafique vs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 907

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case involving a Rs. 78.39 lakh addition made to the income of a fruit seller, condoned a delay due to the severe impact of COVID-19 on the assessee and his family.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s orders and remanded all appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The tribunal observed that the remand was in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits and contest the penalties. The appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

SanghiIndustries Limited & DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 913

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that where no deduction is claimed under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the transfer pricing adjustments under Section 92BA pertaining to specified domestic transactions are unwarranted.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities have erred in applying transfer pricing adjustments in the absence of any deduction claimed under section 80IA. The tribunal held that the adjustments made by the TPO were deleted.The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Income TaxOfficer vs Mandvi Salts & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 911

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that mere non-appearance of directors does not justify additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee has furnished complete documentary evidence establishing the genuineness of the transactions.