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

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the denial of deduction under Section 10AA to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit, ruling that interest income earned from fixed deposits does not constitute business income eligible for exemption.

The tribunal held that the interest income from fixed deposits, being independent of export activity, cannot be treated as business income for the purpose of deduction. The tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) rightly disallowed the claim of deduction in respect of such income. The tribunal upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) , Mumbai Bench, has held that an addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a WhatsApp image found on an employee’s mobile phone, without any corroborative evidence. The bench termed it as a ‘dumb document’.

The Mumbai bench set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the deletion of ₹2.10 crore, holding that the AO was not justified in making additions based solely on a WhatsApp image. Further, since the ₹1.99 crore alleged expenditure was sourced from the same ₹2.10 crore, and no valid basis remained after deleting the latter, the Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue’s appeal challenging its deletion by CIT(A).

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that in cases of unabated assessments, no addition can be sustained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any incriminating material found during a search under Section 132.

Therefore, it held that the AO was not justified in making an addition merely on the ground of non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned delays of up to 884 days in three appeals filed by a cooperative society, ruling that delay should be viewed pragmatically not pedantically for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

The Tribunal observed that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that there is no presumption of deliberate delay. The Tribunal condoned the delays, finding the reasons provided by the assessee, such as the secretary’s health and technological challenges, sufficient. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s orders and remitted all three appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeals of the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

Taxpayer Can Claim DTAA Exemption for Pre-April 2017 Gains and Still Carry Forward Post-April 2017 Losses Under Income Tax Act

TVF Fund Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 918

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that a taxpayer can avail capital gains exemption under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for shares acquired before April 1, 2017, and still carry forward capital losses under Indian domestic tax law for shares acquired thereafter.

The tribunal ruled that the assessee was entitled to carry forward the brought forward losses and current year losses under Section 74 of the Income Tax Act, citing CBDT Circular No. 22 of 1944 and judicial precedents. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that late fees levied under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for delayed TDS returns processed prior to June 1, 2015, were unjustified and held that the amendment to Section 200A is prospective in nature.

The remaining five appeals related to Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 with returns processed after June 1, 2015, the tribunal upheld the applicability of Section 234E fees. The tribunal directed the Revenue authorities to recompute the fees, considering only the delay from June 1, 2015, until the date of return processing. The tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A was prospective in nature. The appeals of the assessee partly allowed.

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted relief to assessee who missed 5 hearings including one scheduled during covid period. The matter was restored to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

The bench of Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) and Manish Board (Accountant member) directed the assessee to update contact information and remain vigilant in the future while responding to notices. It clearly stated that not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Rejection of Additional Evidence on Transport Expenses u/s 40(a)(ia): ITAT Remits Matter to CIT(A)

Bala Filling Station Opp. GEB Substation vs The ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 923

The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for a fresh decision after rejecting the CIT(A)’s stance on the non-admission of additional evidence related to transport expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act,1961.

The appellate tribunal disagreed with this view, holding that the CIT(A) had the power to admit additional evidence and conduct further inquiry under Section 250(4), regardless of Rule 46A restrictions. It observed that the assessee’s mistake was genuine and the correct certificate should have been admitted in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remitted the matter back for fresh decision after admitting the additional evidence.

Disallowance for Contractual Penalties Deducted by Government Authorities: ITAT Allows Deduction as Business Expenditure u/s 37(1) M/s G.L.Construction Pvt Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 922

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)allowed deduction of ₹42.44 lakh as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act,1961 rejecting the disallowance for contractual penalties deducted by government authorities.

It held that the disallowance of Rs.42,44,859/- was not justified, set aside the appellate order, and directed that the amount be allowed as a business expense. Therefore,the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

Cash Payments to Landlord, Students etc., Exceeds Threshold limit of Rs.10,000: ITAT Upholds Disallowance u/s 40A(3)

Devcare Solutions vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 924

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the disallowance of cash payments amounting to Rs. 66,61,467 for violating the threshold limit of Rs. 10000 prescribed under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s findings and confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 66,61,467. The tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for genuineness of the transactions. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

ITAT deletes ₹9.9 Cr Income Tax Addition Over AO’s Profit Overestimation and Unsubstantiated Loans

Bhrugesh Dienshbhai Shah vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 925

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deletes a 9.9 crore tax addition made by the AO because of the overestimation of profit, misclassification of assets, and lack of evidence Ruchit Enterprise was run by the assessee, Bhrugesh Dineshbhai Shah, who dealt in chemical trading. In his 2017–18 tax return, he reported ₹6,92,020 in total income. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO made several additions under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal observed the capital work-in-progress classification and concluded that there was no concealment or irregularity involved, only a case of mislabeling already-existing assets. Since the department failed to provide any material evidence to substantiate the claims of AO, the bench concluded that the additions made by the AO were unnecessary. The bench thus allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the AO to delete the additions made by him.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 350-day delay in filing an appeal by the District Magistrate, Badaun, in a case concerning non-compliance with Tax Collected at Source (TCS) provisions under Section 206C(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the absence of any representation by the District Magistrate’s authorized representative during the hearing.

The tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It directed that the District Magistrate be given a proper opportunity to present their case and that the matter be decided through a speaking order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Mere Mention of Sale and Estimated Gain, No Tangible Material Linking Deceased CFO to Escaped Income: ITAT Invalidates Reopening

Smt Seema Swami vs ACIT, Rohtak, Haryana CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 927

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the reassessment proceedings against the legal heir of a deceased CFO, ruling that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, lacked tangible material linking the assessee to the alleged escaped income.

The tribunal held that the reopening was jurisdictionally invalid due to the absence of tangible material forming a live link to escaped income. The tribunal ruled that such speculative belief could not justify reopening an already concluded assessment. The ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the appeal, rendering other grounds academic.

Partial Relief to Motorola: ITAT Treats Software Expenses as Revenue Expenditure Citing Recurring Maintenance and No Enduring Benefit

Motorola Solutions India Private Limited vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 929

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted partial relief to Motorola Solutions by holding that software expenses incurred by the company were revenue in nature, as they related to recurring maintenance and did not result in any enduring benefit.

The tribunal ruled that the software expenses were revenue in nature and directed the Assessing Officer to allow them as a deduction in full. The appeal was partly allowed on this issue in favour of the assessee.

The Cochin Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after finding that key documents submitted by the assessee, including audited accounts, cash book, day book, expense records, and bank statements, were not considered either by the AO or the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)].

The appellate tribunal sent the case back to the AO for a fresh decision. The AO was directed to give the assessee a fair chance to be heard and to consider all submissions and evidence before deciding. In short,the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Income Already Taxed cannot be Treated Again as Unexplained Cash Credit: ITAT

Dipakkumar Pushkarray Vyas vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 934

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT)held that income already taxed cannot be treated again as unexplained cash credit.

The appellate tribunal found that the addition under section 68 was made only on the basis of third-party information without considering the assessee’s records. It held that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. Therefore the appeal was partly allowed.

ITAT Dismisses Scan Ispat’s Appeal as Withdrawn Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme

Scan Ispat Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 936

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur bench has dismissed the appeal filed by Scan Ispat Limited after the steel manufacturer opted to settle its tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The company had challenged additions of Rs.3.43 crore made by tax authorities for assessment year 2010-11 regarding unexplained share capital and premium.

The tribunal's approach balances the finality of dispute resolution schemes with protecting taxpayers' rights - allowing for appeal restoration if the settlement process fails. This pragmatic handling of scheme cases helps reduce the backlog of appeals while ensuring justice isn't compromised.

The Cochin Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted a disallowance of ₹6.55 lakh under section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act,1961, holding that the cash payments were made for capital assets and not revenue expenses.

The tribunal also found that the case laws relied upon by the CIT(A) dealt with stock-in-trade, not capital assets, and were not relevant in this case.The ITAT held that section 40A(3) was not applicable and deleted the disallowance of ₹6,55,650. Therefore, the appeal filed was allowed.

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeals against Civil Contractor as Tax Effect Below ₹60 Lakhs, Grounds Termed “Cryptic and Nebulous”

Income Tax Officer vs Janardan Shyam Bihari Singh Ganesh Nagar CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 938

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently dismissed two appeals filed by the Income Tax Officer against the assessee Janardan Shyam Bihari Singh, a civil contractor, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011–12 and 2014–15. The Tribunal held that the tax effect in both cases was below the monetary limit of ₹60 lakhs as prescribed under CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 and that the grounds raised by the Revenue were too vague to be adjudicated upon.

The bench comprising Shri V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and Shri K. M. Roy (Accountant Member) observed that the Revenue failed to make out any substantial grievance against the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) [NFAC] and hence dismissed both appeals in limine. The Bench granted liberty to the Revenue to approach the Tribunal again by filing a Miscellaneous Application if it is found that the tax effect exceeds the prescribed limit or if any exception under the CBDT circular applies.

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, remanded the case of a charitable trust, back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] after holding that the rejection of the trust’s registration application, solely on the basis of quoting an incorrect provision due to technical limitations in the online portal, and without issuing a show cause notice, was unsustainable in law.

Accordingly, the tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the trust’s application as filed under the correct provision Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and to re-adjudicate the matter afresh after giving the trust a fair opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal also remanded the related appeal under Section 80G(5) of Income tax act for reconsideration on similar lines.

Reassessment Proceedings Initiated Without Documentary Evidence and Based on Borrowed Satisfaction: ITAT Quashes Proceedings

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ),quashed reassessment proceedings initiated without any documentary evidence and based solely on borrowed satisfaction. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order passed by CIT(A) dated 03.10.2016 for AY 2007–08.

The two member bench comprising Yogesh Kuamr U.S(Judicial Member) and M.Balaganesh(Accountant Member) noted that the department only challenged the quashing of the reassessment and not the deletion of additions. It held that the CIT(A) rightly quashed the reassessment, which was based on incorrect and insufficient information. Therefore the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the addition of Rs. 2.02 crore as accommodation entries was unsustainable due to lack of primary proof.

The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar(Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble(Judicial Member) examined the information, the AO’s order, and the CIT(A)’s decision. It found that the authorities failed to present any primary evidence. The search findings at Mr. Jignesh Shah’s and Mr. Sanjay Shah’s premises were not properly used by the AO, leading to a weak case. The AO claimed that accommodation entry providers used synchronized trading to create fake Long Term Capital Gains(LTCG) against cash.

CIT(A) dismisses Income tax Appeal on Technical Grounds rather than on Merits: ITAT directs to issues Speaking Order

Upashan Debnath vs ITO, Ward-41(3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 937

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Kolkata Bench directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to issue a speaking order where the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on technical grounds rather than considering the merits.

The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a speaking order based on the merits of the case. The assessee was also instructed to fully cooperate during the remand proceedings and comply with notices issued.

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded for fresh adjudication with cost of Rs. 5000 in the case involving high value transactions in savings accounts for which Income Tax Return ( ITR ) was not filed due to the illiteracy of the assessee.

The tribunal directed the AO to verify the payment and decide the issue afresh after considering the assessee’s written submissions and documentary evidence. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case involving additions of Rs. 2.31 crore back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, citing the need for appropriate enquiries into unexplained cash deposits and disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.

The tribunal also directed the assessee to furnish complete details before the Assessing Officer for completing the assessment process. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Non-Compliance to SCN for Cash Deposits of Rs. 6.16 Cr: ITAT Remands for Fresh Adjudication of Co-Operative Society with 5k Costs

R 1618 Varadharajapuram Primary vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 948

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case involving unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 6.16 crore to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, citing non-compliance with statutory notices.

The AO was directed to verify the payment and decide the issue afresh after considering the assessee’s written submissions and documentary evidence. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Non-Mention of Rule 46A Not Ground to Reject additional evidence: ITAT Remands Rs. 23.08 Cash Deposit Matter for fresh adjudication

Munireddy Prakashreddy vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 949

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case involving an addition of Rs. 23.08 lakh for unexplained cash deposits and held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in rejecting additional evidence submitted by the assessee solely due to the non-mention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

In the interest of justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence, provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard, and pass a speaking order. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Mere Change of Opinion not Necessary Ingredient For Reassessment: ITAT quashes Reassessment on Software License Fee

J Ray McDermott Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd vs TheDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 947

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed a reassessment order and ruled that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to it being based on a mere change of opinion. The case involved the treatment of software license fee expenses as capital expenditure, which the Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal observed that the AO’s assumption that TDS was deducted only on Rs. 50,50,223 was incorrect, as TDS was deducted on the entire Rs. 6,29,67,347, as evidenced by the records. The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion, as no new evidence was brought on record to justify the reassessment. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Interest from Urban Cooperative Banks Qualifies as Society Income: ITAT Allows 80P Deduction

The Bhagyalaxmi Co.Op. Credit Society Limited vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Mehsana Circle CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 955

The Ahmedabad SMC Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has ruled in favour of a cooperative credit society, holding that interest income earned from deposits in an Urban Cooperative Bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the assessee's appeal. The deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from Mehsana Urban Cooperative Bank was held to be permissible.

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded with one more opportunity in a case involving the disallowance of claim towards the cost of improvement in computing Long Term Capital Gains for fresh adjudication to substantiate with documentary evidence.

The tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the AO to decide the issue de novo after providing the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard and submit documentary evidence. The tribunal also directed the assessee to appear before the AO on the scheduled hearing date without fail. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

Deduction of VRS Compensation by Auto Dealer: ITAT Remands to Verify if Amount was Disallowed while Computing Income

The Income Tax Officer vs The Reliance Motor Company LtdCITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1098

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine whether the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) issue compensation amount was disallowed while computing the taxable loss of the Assessee. The assessee is a dealer in cars and motorbikes. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee claimed VRS payments amounting to ₹2,12,08,000.

The bench of Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) observed that the facts of the present case being pari-materia the same case, restored the issue back to the AO for verification and allowed the ground for statistical purposes.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed a revision order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a case involving alleged accommodation entry transactions. The matter arose when the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Ahmedabad-1, invoked revisionary powers to set aside an assessment order passed in the case of Synwave Industries for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

In conclusion, the ITAT found that the original assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as required for action under Section 263. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT’s revision order and restored the assessment order as passed by the AO. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, providing relief in the face of what the bench termed an unjustified invocation of revisionary jurisdiction.

The Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently delivered a noteworthy decision addressing the eligibility of co-operative societies to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even when their returns have been filed after the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.

It is important to note that the Tribunal’s ruling is expressly limited to the specific facts of these cases and should not be construed as a general precedent. Nevertheless, genuine deduction claims, particularly those aimed at supporting co-operative societies, ought not to be summarily rejected due to technical lapses if they are otherwise legitimate and substantiated.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that pre-operative expenses incurred by Tata Teleservices Ltd. for the expansion of its existing telecommunication business constitute revenue expenditure, fully deductible under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal held that the nomenclature of expenses is not determinative of their nature, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents which ruled that the pre-operative expenses were revenue expenditure, fully deductible under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act. The tribunal deleted the additions of Rs. 90,14,00,000 and Rs. 3,38,40,00,000 for AY 2009-10, and Rs. 33,30,00,000 and Rs. 2,41,60,00,000 for AY 2010-11. The appeals of the assessee were allowed.

Umesh Garg (assessee), the proprietor of M/s A.R. Foods, engaged in manufacturing breads and rusks, faced scrutiny for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) on 30.09.2011, declaring an income of Rs. 2,26,070.

The tribunal observed that capital withdrawals were not taxable, receivables were supported by books, funds from M/s Garg Agencies were verified, and bank charges were documented. The tribunal held that PCIT failed to establish error or prejudice to the revenue. The tribunal quashed the PCIT’s order and held that the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Necessity for Verification of Capital and stock balances: ITAT Remits Rs. 7 Cr Income Addition

Tejasvi Bhalla vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1103

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an addition of Rs. 7,28,72,419 and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the opening capital and stock balances afresh for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. Tejasvi Bhalla (assessee), a commission agent and proprietor of Arshia Enterprises, faced scrutiny for AY 2018-19. The assessee filed original Income Tax Return (ITR) on 28.08.2018, declaring an income of Rs. 4,77,890.

The tribunal held that, in the interest of justice, the matter should be remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee adequate opportunities to substantiate claims. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the AO to re-examine the additions of Rs. 7,28,72,419. The issue of penalty initiation under Section 271AAC was dismissed as premature.

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that a loose computerized sheet found during a search without corroborative evidence did not constitute valid grounds for an income addition of ₹7 crore or the imposition of a penalty under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tara Health Foods Ltd. (assessee), a company, faced scrutiny for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 following a search operation under Section 132 on 12.10.2010. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 153A.

The two-member bench, comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Manoj KumarAggarwal (Accountant Member), observed that the loose sheet, though computerized, lacked signatures or evidence of execution. The tribunal also observed that M/s Muez Hest India Pvt. Ltd. denied any cash transactions, and no corroborative material was found during the search to link the Rs. 7 crore to any unaccounted investment or transaction.The tribunal deleted the Rs. 7 crore addition and ruled them as unsubstantiated. The penalty under Section 271AAA was also deleted. The appeals of the assessee were partly allowed.

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the surplus from textbook sales was educational and not commercial, and accordingly upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s order allowing exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the CIT(A) order. In this case, Delhi Bureau of Text Books, respondent-assessee, was engaged in publishing and distributing textbooks for students from Class I to VIII in Government and aided schools in Delhi.

The appellate tribunal also referred to its own earlier decisions in the assessee’s cases for AYs 2010-11 to 2014-15, where similar exemptions had been allowed, following the High Court’s ruling. It further noted that the Revenue’s appeal before the Supreme Court was withdrawn due to low tax effect, and no SLP was pending. Based on these facts, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order allowing exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that delay in filing Form 10B does not bar exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act,1961. For the assessment year 2023-24, the appellant filed its return of income on 01.09.2023, along with Form 10, declaring accumulation of ₹5,73,129 under section 11(2). A revised return was filed on 14.11.2023 under section 139(4A), declaring ‘NIL’ income.

The assessee relied on rulings from the Gujarat and Calcutta High Courts, which held that delayed filing of Form 10B did not disqualify a trust from claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12. Since the facts were similar, the appellate tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption and directed the CPC to delete the adjustment made in processing the return. Therefore, the appeal was allowed.

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)], which had rejected the registration application of Shree Rikhavdevji & Kunthunathji Prabhu Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Padhi, and simultaneously cancelled its provisional registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the denial, based solely on procedural non-compliance, without examining the genuineness of the Trust’s activities, amounted to a serious lapse of natural justice.

The ITAT, finding merit in the assessee’s submissions, set aside the CIT(E)’s order and remanded the matter to the files of CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate fully and furnish all necessary documents in support of its application. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently allowed an appeal filed by Goregaon Education Society while observing that the exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied due to delays in filing Forms 9A and 10, as the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circulars permits such delay and the same are binding on the revenue authorities.

The Bench comprising Sunil Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) referring to CBDT Circular No. 7/2018 and Circular No. 30/2019, observed the circular as binding on the revenue authorities and consequently directed the AO to allow the exemption claim. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently dismissed six appeals with common grounds, challenging the justification of the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ). The leading appeal of the batch pertained to the disallowance of ₹63,430 by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of commission at 1% on undisclosed sale that was received by the Assessee.

The Bench noted that all such transactions were held to be bogus sale transactions based on incriminating material impounded during the search & seizure action conducted on the premises of the assessee, and a commission of 1% was added to the income of the assessee. Hence, the present appeal stood dismissed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Lucknow has canceled a penalty order against a Raebareli taxpayer, ruling that authorities failed to provide a fair hearing by ignoring the assessee's request to avoid email communications. The tribunal directed tax officials to re-examine the case after proper notice delivery, emphasizing the importance of accommodating taxpayers' communication preferences.

The tribunal set aside both the penalty order and the CIT(A)'s dismissal, directing the Assessing Officer to conduct fresh proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that tax authorities must respect taxpayers' communication preferences and provide adequate response time, especially in penalty cases that carry significant financial consequences. The decision serves as an important reminder to tax officials about maintaining procedural fairness in the digital age, particularly when dealing with taxpayers who may not be comfortable with electronic communications.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Lucknow Bench has ordered tax authorities to conduct a fresh assessment in the case of a Kanpur petrol pump owner, ruling that the taxpayer's right to natural justice was violated through improper delivery of electronic notices. The decision comes after the tribunal found that the assessee's limited technical proficiency prevented him from accessing crucial digital communications during the proceedings.

The ITAT's order directs the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case with proper notice delivery and consider all documentation that Kumar was previously unable to submit. The tribunal emphasized that while digital transformation of tax administration is important, it should not come at the cost of fundamental principles of natural justice.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has strongly criticized the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for denying a fair hearing to a taxpayer, calling it a violation of natural justice. The tribunal ordered tax authorities to re-examine a ₹13.47 crore addition related to unsecured loans, giving the assessee a proper chance to present evidence.

The Judicial Member, Narendra Kumar Billaiya, and Vice President Saktijit Dey noted that dismissing an appeal without examining evidence amounts to "harassment of the taxpayer." They emphasized that authorities must follow due process, especially when substantial additions are made. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the case afresh after reviewing all documents and giving the taxpayer a fair opportunity to explain.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the taxability of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade under the head "Income from House Property," while remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer to reassess the Annual Lettable Value (ALV) based on prevailing market rates.

The bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) held that the notional rent on unsold flats and shops was rightly taxed under “Income from House Property.” However, it directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the ALV based on the actual prevailing market rent, after giving a proper opportunity to the assessee to submit relevant data. The Tribunal thus partly allowed the appeal, keeping the taxation head unchanged but allowing fresh determination of the rental value.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the enhanced 10% tolerance limit under section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act applies retrospectively. This decision has resulted in a substantial reduction of the addition made to the income of NRB Developers in a property valuation dispute for the assessment year 2018-19.

The ITAT bench, comprising Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member), agreed with the assessee. The Tribunal held that the provision increasing the tolerance limit from 5% to 10% is clarificatory and applies to earlier years as well. Accordingly, the ITAT directed that only the excess amount over the 10% limit should be added to the income, and the rest should be deleted. The appeal of NRB Developers was allowed, and the revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

The Agra Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that a property comprising four shops on the ground floor and a single room on the first floor could not be treated as a residential house for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information that the assessee had sold an immovable property for ₹ 45,00,000/- but had not disclosed any capital gains in his return.

The bench agreed that the property sold was jointly owned with the assessee’s wife. Since this was clear from the sale deed, it held that only 50 percent of the sale consideration should be taxed in the appellant’s hands. The tribunal directed the AO to recompute the capital gains accordingly and allowed partial relief on this point.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, has quashed assessment orders passed against late Laxman Rao Banapuram for the assessment years 2014–15 and 2015–16, holding that the reference made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was mechanical, arbitrary, and invalid, and therefore, the resultant assessments were time-barred.

The Bench, comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President) and Manjunatha G (Accountant Member), observed that the referral to a special audit was arbitrary and thus invalid under law. Consequently, since the time extension granted due to such referral was illegal, the final assessment orders dated August 23, 2019, were held to be time-barred and void.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), which had denied permanent registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to Mahavir Yuva Sarva Shiksha Samajik Samiti, a Ujjain-based charitable society, and cancelled its earlier provisional registration.

The Tribunal observed that the society’s objectives, such as tree plantation, free medical treatment, blood donation camps, and providing support to the differently abled, had not been questioned. It held that while the department is entitled to seek clarity on donations, the context and nature of donations must also be considered.

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directs de novo proceedings due to lack of evidence to substantiate deferred revenue in the profit & loss account (P&L account). The assessee appealed against the order passed by the CIT(A). During the course of assessment, on examination of the Profit and Loss Account of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had shown income from Rs. 9,63,30,302/-, whereas on reconciliation of the same with Form 26AS, the total receipts of the assessee came to Rs. 14,30,16,494/-.

The contents of the agreements furnished by the assessee for deferment of revenue, the year-wise income recognition table and the reconciliation statement of Form 26AS with audited Profit & Loss Account, the two member bench of Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member & Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member viewed that assessee has not given a clear finding on what basis the amount was deferred by the assessee.

In a recent case, the Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that hiring a charter plane cannot be treated as a payment made for professional or technical services. The assessee is engaged in providing security services and allied services. Basis TDS default reported in para 21(b)(ii) of the Tax Audit Report for the FY. 2021-22, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the assessee should not be treated as assessee-in-default for non-deduction of TDS on account of payment of Rs. 40,80,000/-.

The tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the AO to determine the exact nature of a transaction, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It would also be appropriate to determine whether the payee has included the said transaction while offering its income in the return of income and has paid the appropriate tax or not and in this regard, the AO may seek necessary information from the payee concerned.

The Hyderabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) viewed that two income tax notices issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A)) in one week amounted to gross violation of the opportunity to respond and allowed the appeal of Geovista Technology Ltd..

The appeal of the assessee was not decided by a speaking order and on merits, then in the interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Surat bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the theory of peak credit is inapplicable in a case involving undisclosed income channeled through bogus gold trade transactions. The Tribunal ordered the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify all the details and evidence that are mandated as per the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and Guidelines.

The ITAT bench comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) ordered that the peak credit theory cannot be applied where transactions are not cyclical and the withdrawals are made via cheque.

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded the rejection of applications for registration citing insufficient verification of seminar expenses and TDS deductions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). The tribunal ruled that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] failed to adequately verify the trust’s seminar expenses and the implications of TDS deductions by pharmaceutical donors.

The two-member bench comprising Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) and Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(E) made general remarks without verifying the purpose of seminars, the nature of medical relief expenses, or the context of TDS deductions.

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a penalty of Rs. 13,44,580 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, citing the defective income tax notice that failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The tribunal found the Bombay High Court’s ruling squarely applicable, as the Revenue failed to provide contrary jurisdictional precedent. The tribunal held that a defective notice under Section 274 cannot sustain penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 13,44,580. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the inclusion of five additional companies as comparables for transfer pricing benchmarking and quashing a transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,39,98,806 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.

The two-member bench, comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) observed that under RPM, as prescribed by Rule 10B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the focus is on the similarity of functions and risks rather than strict product similarity.

Shree KoteshwarMahadev Public vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1125

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case concerning the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Shree Koteshwar Mahadev Public Trust, observing that the lower authorities had not properly evaluated the trust's eligibility post-registration and did not provide adequate opportunity for hearing.

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case concerning the denial of exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Shree Koteshwar Mahadev Public Trust, observing that the lower authorities had not properly evaluated the trust's eligibility post-registration and did not provide adequate opportunity for hearing.

Terai FruitsCompany vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1126

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a penalty imposed for misreporting of income while directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) to re-examine the firm’s claim for immunity, observing that a procedural lapse in form submission alone should not override the assessee’s substantive requirements.

The ITAT bench of Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) noticed that despite the assessee having failed to submit Form 68, had made all substantive compliance under Section270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (1992), the Tribunal reiterated that procedural lapses should not defeat legitimate and bona fide claims when the substantive intention of the law has been met.

ACIT vsSignature Global (India) Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1127

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue against Signature Global (India) Pvt. Ltd., ruling in favor of the assessee on issues related to share capital, unsecured loans, and disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench comprised Sudhir Pareek (Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman(Accountant Member).

The Revenue’s argument that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without a remand report was also rejected. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had the authority under Section 250(4) to conduct independent inquiries, as affirmed by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2011). In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed all grounds raised by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)’s order.

RakshaBuildtech Private Limited vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1128

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has deleted an addition of Rs. 3.12 crore made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that Raksha Buildtech Private Limited had sufficiently demonstrated the source of funds for land purchases made in earlier years. The bench comprised Judicial Member Sudhir Kumar and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman.

The ITAT deleted the Rs. 3.12 crore addition, concluding that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

TimirbaranMazumder vs D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1129

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently allowed a Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) to an assessee, despite a delay in filing Form 67, holding that procedural lapses cannot extinguish substantive rights.

The Tribunal referred to various ITAT and High Court rulings, like Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT. It concluded that procedural compliance should not hinder tax justice when the substantive entitlement is unambiguous. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC by law and the DTAA between India and the USA. Grounds 1 to 3 were allowed, and the remaining grounds, being general or consequential, were not separately adjudicated. As a result, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

PoojaEquiresearch Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1130

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench has set aside an addition of ₹1.26 crore made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act against the appellant holding that for assessment years prior to 2013-14, an assessee is not required to prove the “source of the source” of loans or credits reflected in its books.

The ITAT allowed the appeal of Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd. and direc2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1130ted that the addition made under Section 68 be deleted. This order reaffirms that for loans or credits received prior to assessment year 2013-14, the assessee’s obligation is limited to proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, and not the source of the transaction.

Amol BabanravKolakar vs Addl./Jt./Dy./Asstt./ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1131

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a delay of 87 days in filing an appeal, granting relief to a taxpayer who claimed ignorance of proceedings due to negligence by his part-time accountant.

The bench comprising V Durga Rao (Judicial Member), noted that the taxpayer had shown a consistent pattern of non-compliance, failing to respond to notices issued on four separate occasions during the appellate proceedings and filing the first appeal itself with a 59-day delay. It termed his approach as “lackadaisical” (carelessly lazy) but chose to give him another opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter remanded back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit a properly supported condonation application before the CIT(A), who shall exercise discretion to decide it on merits before proceeding with the appeal.

Ashish KeshavUkey vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1132

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has set aside an ex-parte order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after observing multiple procedural lapses and non-appearance during hearings.

Taking note of the persistent non-compliance and delays, the Bench Comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K M Roy (Accountant Member) imposed a cost of ₹5,000 per appeal totalling ₹10,000, to be paid to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. Proof of payment must be submitted before the CIT(A) during further proceedings.

AbhishekGolecha vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1133

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has set aside an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and granted the taxpayer a fresh opportunity to present his case. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in tax proceedings.

Durga Rao (Judicial Member) observed that while the CIT(A) had followed due process by issuing notices, the final order was passed ex-parte, leaving the assessee without a fair hearing. Citing the principle of natural justice, the ITAT held that Golecha deserved one more opportunity to substantiate his claims.

Aditya UrbanCo–operative vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1134

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted substantial tax relief to a cooperative credit society, holding that interest earned on fixed deposits (FDRs) with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had earned interest from FDRs maintained with cooperative banks, which are registered cooperative societies, and hence, the interest qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal observed that the authorities below had erred in disallowing the claim merely based on the source of the income without examining the nature of the investment.

ShreejiAssociates vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1135

The ITAT Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed depreciation based on an incomplete understanding of the property usage and rental terms, thereby warranting action from the PCIT.

The Tribunal bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) held that the AO’s basis for disallowing depreciation was incorrect and not connected with the contents of the rent agreement.

SahilSatishbhai Shah vs Income-Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1136

In a notable ruling reaffirming the necessity for concrete evidence in income tax assessments, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad has deleted an addition of ₹2.53 lakh made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a case involving alleged client code modification (CCM).

The ITAT found merit in the assessee’s contention. The tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to produce any concrete evidence proving that Shah held or transacted in the said shares. There was no demat account statement, broker ledger, or other documentation showing his involvement in the transaction. Moreover, the Revenue could not demonstrate any financial relationship between the assessee and the broker in question.

Shree HariEnterprise vs The Pr.CIT-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1137

In partial relief to an assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has quashed two major directions issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

The ITAT found that the PCIT had failed to counter or analyze the explanation offered by the assessee and did not substantiate how the valuation method violated ICDS. In the absence of demonstrated error, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT’s directions were unsustainable in law.

M/s. ShreejiInfratech vs PCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1138

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that mere disclosure of undisclosed income in tax returns is not sufficient to shield an assessee from the provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the revisionary action taken by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 in the case of M/s. Shreeji Infratech and M/s. Shreeji Infra for the Assessment Year 2017–18.

The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT acted within his jurisdiction and upheld the revisionary order, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by both Shreeji entities.

PankajbhaiDevrajbhai Soliya vs NFAC CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1139

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, has remanded a delayed income tax appeal back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication on merits. The relief was granted to the appellant-assessee, subject to payment of ₹15,000 as cost, after it was found that the delay in filing the appeal stemmed from the taxpayer’s failure to check his registered email regularly.

The ITAT directed Soliya to pay ₹15,000 to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Surat Bench, within two weeks as a condition for the appeal’s restoration.The Tribunal also issued a cautionary note, urging the assessee to exercise greater vigilance and cooperate fully during the appellate process. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Shree HariEnterprise vs The Pr.CIT-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1140

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has upheld the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax’s (PCIT) revisionary action under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee, citing critical lapses by the Assessing Officer (AO) in verifying TDS compliance and unsecured loan transactions during assessment.

In a partial relief to the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT’s findings regarding TDS on professional services and valuation of closing stock, citing lack of conclusive error in the assessment. The appeal was thus partly allowed, with key elements of the PCIT’s revisionary order sustained.