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

Lothada-Piplana-Padavalavs The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1141

The Rajkot Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] which rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant Member) and Dinesh Mohan Sinha (Judicial Member) observed the assessee’s reasons for delay, including the director’s age, lack of education, and dependence on an uncooperative accountant. The tribunal further observed that the CIT(E) rejected the applications due to the assessee’s failure to submit documents, but the assessee’s lack of familiarity with online systems contributed to the non-compliance.

Maa HarsiddhiInfra Developers Private Limited vs TheDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1142

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with notices citing it was not deliberate and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the assessee deserved one final opportunity to present the case on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the appeal fresh, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

Karnataka StateDiploma in Nursing Examination Board vsCIT (Exemptions) Bangalore CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1143

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] which cancelled the registration granted under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing technical error in charitable institution registration application.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(E)’s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) with directions to treat the assessee’s original application as filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and to decide the issue afresh.

Kodavaame vsCIT (Exemptions) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1144

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], which cancelled the registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration and also directed that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be granted to the assessee. The tribunal also instructed the assessee to submit all necessary documents, financials, and reports promptly and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

PurshottamNarayanrao Jadhao vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1145

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a delay of 510 days in filing an Income Tax appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and directed fresh adjudication on the merits.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the 510-day delay, adjudicate the appeal on its merits, and pass a speaking order under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

MAHINDRAUNIVERSITY vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1146

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] which rejected the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application after thorough verification of the university’s charitable educational activities.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(E)’s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(E) was directed to verify all relevant facts, including the university’s records and prior approval under Section 10(23C)(vi), while providing the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard.

Modi CharitableTrust vs The CIT(Exemption) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1147

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling condoned a delay of 224 days in filing appeals and remanded back the matter upon being certain that the appellant was unfamiliar with income tax proceedings and did not regularly check the e-filing portal or emails due to lack of prior litigation experience.

TAT set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and both matters were remanded for fresh adjudication before CIT(E) while advising that the assessee be provided due opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of any decision. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Oxford ShikshaSamiti vs Income-tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1148

The Agra Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in its recent ruling condoned delay in filing appeals that had previously been dismissed as time-barred by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ( CIT (A) ) by relying on the Supreme Court’s directions to exclude the COVID-19 pandemic period for the purpose of computing limitation.

The bench comprising of Sunil Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member) finding merit in the appellant's submission condoned the delay in filing the first appeal and remanded the same back to CIT(A) to decide the matter fresh on merit in accordance with the law.

ChimanbhaiChhaganbhai vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1149

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the disallowance of ₹55.52 lakh claimed as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) exemption by the assessee, after finding the transaction to be part of a bogus penny stock scheme.

The ITAT held that the assessee had claimed bogus LTCG and upheld the order of the CIT(A). Therefore,the appeal was dismissed.

HemkuntFoundations vs Principal Commissioner Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1150

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the cancellation of registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ruled that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) lacked jurisdiction and that the "specified violation" clause under Section 12AB(4) was inapplicable for the financial years in question.

The tribunal ruled that the "specified violation" clause under Section 12AB(4), effective from 01.04.2022, could not be applied to FY 2020-21 or FY 2021-22, therefore, the cancellation order was legally unsustainable.

Raghav Bahl vsDCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1151

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing the interest deduction claimed under Section 24B for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 to 2019-20.

The tribunal held that the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue interests. The tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court’s decisions in PCIT v. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. 2024, which stated that a plausible view taken by the AO cannot be revised under Section 263 unless it was unsustainable in law.

BangaloreMedical College Alumni Association vs CIT(Exemptions) Bangalore CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1152

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], which rejected the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be granted to the assessee. The tribunal also directed the assessee to submit all necessary documents, financials, and reports promptly to support its claim. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Muthoot Bankersvs ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1153

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling granted relief to Muthoot Bankers by allowing a deduction of ₹5,00,000 paid as interest to partner, as the payment was within the 12 percent limit and duly authorized by the partnership deed.

The bench comprising Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held that the reasoning adopted by the lower authorities in disallowing interest paid to the partners solely on the ground of business activity was not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Sh. JagmohanGarg vs The DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1154

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] citing the failure to adjudicate the issue on merits and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that in the interest of justice the assessee deserved a proper opportunity to present the case. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

M/s DeoraElectric Works vs The JCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1155

The Allahabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has partly allowed the appeal of M/s Deora Electric Works, modifying the estimation of profits made by the Assessing Officer (AO) after rejecting the firm’s books under Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal, comprising Sudhanshu Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Nikhil Choudhary (Accountant Member), addressed the matter by segregating two key issues: (i) suppression of receipts and (ii) profit estimation after book rejection. The ITAT found that the addition of ₹56.69 lakh was unsustainable because the assessee failed to match the tender values with the reported income, necessitating thorough verification. The Tribunal noted that ₹34.64 lakh was reflected as sundry debtors and ₹9.39 lakh related to projects with reduced scope of work, and the revenue had not conclusively disproved these claims.

VirbalaKiritkumar Patel vs Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1156

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted disallowances made under Section 40A(2)(b) for payments to related parties, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to justify the excessiveness of the amounts.

The two member bench comprising Dr.BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member observed that in the present case, the AO had placed the entire burden of proving the reasonableness of the payments on the assessee. It noted that the officer failed to bring on record any comparable cases or evidence to show that the payments made were excessive in light of the fair market value of the services received.

Chittur ServiceCo-op. Bank Ltd vs The Income TaxOfficer-1 & TPS CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1157

In a recent ruling the ITAT Cochin bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal of cooperative society by holding that the claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be disallowed solely on ground of lending money to non-members

A two member bench of Inturi Rama Rao, AM and Prakash Chand Yadav, JM found that the Full Bench judgement of the High Court in the case Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2019] was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of 431 ITR 1 (SC). In the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court, the tribunal ruled that the appellant society is entitled for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act.

Uday VithalNagpure vs Income Tax Officer 15(1)(2) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1158

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), which made additions totaling Rs. 2,23,53,793 under Section 68, and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.

The tribunal set aside the additions and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the AO to conduct inquiries and consider all submitted documents. The tribunal clarified that no addition should be made solely due to the assessee’s failure to produce Akerkar. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

D.C.I.T vsPhilips India Limited CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1159

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld 30% depreciation on moulds used by third-party vendors exclusively manufacturing for Philips India. The Revenue-appellant appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C on 27.02.2017. On appeal, the ITAT Kolkata set aside the order on 07.02.2018 for fresh adjudication.

The two member bench comprising George Mathan ( Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra( Accountant Member) noted that the CIT(A) had followed its earlier decision in the assessee’s case for AY 2009-10. Since the facts were the same, the tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for 30% depreciation and found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s appeal for AY 2012-13 was dismissed.

AdaniInfrastructure Management Services Ltd vs DeputyCommissioner of Income-tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1160

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that superannuation fund contribution is allowable as a deduction if paid before the due date of filing the return and the fund is approved.

The two member bench comprising of Dr.BRR Kumar (Vice-President) and T.R.Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member) noted that the main issue was whether the contribution of ₹1,99,992 to the Employees’ Superannuation Fund was eligible for deduction, as it was paid after the due date under the scheme but before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act.

Sree NarayanaDharma Paripalana Youvajana Samithi vs TheIncome Tax Officer (Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1161

The Cochin Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that profits earned from the Kuri business run by a registered charitable trust were eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act,1961.

A Single member bench of Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) reviewed the submissions and records, and noted that the assessee trust was running a Kuri business. The profits were used to achieve the trust’s objectives.

Dipak Raheja vsThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1162

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Revenue to examine tax evasion involving accommodation entries received in the guise of unsecured loans from shell companies.

The two member bench comprising Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) held that while natural justice warranted one more chance to explain the case, the CIT(A) must thoroughly examine whether any fraud had been committed and whether taxes were evaded.

Hanumant IngotsPvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1163

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dealt with additions made on account of alleged bogus transactions, observing that it is the responsibility of the tax authorities to examine whether such transactions constitute genuine tax planning or tax evasion.

The appellate tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee a final opportunity to submit evidence and prove the genuineness of the transactions. If the assessee failed to cooperate, the CIT(A) was free to decide the matter as per law within three months.

Dy.CIT –Central Circle – 2(1) vs M/s. Aakar Hotels CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1164

The Nagpur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that ownership of property in individual capacity of partners cannot be considered for Long TermCapital Gains ( LTCG )for taxing their partnership firm. The assessee, a partnership firm, was subjected to a search and seizure operation involving its partners, Atul Yamsanwar and others. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and alleged that income from the transfer of a hotel property had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal held that the partnership firm and its partners are distinct entities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the firm could not be considered the owner of the capital asset for LTCG taxation.

Anand Boddapatyvs The PCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1165

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that purchase of property via unregistered sale agreement is not a valid transfer to claim exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed his income tax return for the assessment year 2021-22, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,07,55,350. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and the AO issued notices to verify the large capital gains exemption claimed under Section 54 of the Act.

The two-member bench, comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President) and Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) observed that the AO’s failure to verify the unregistered agreement with a related party that was assessee’s wife in light of relevant provisions constituted an error.

Wavoo RealEstate Corporation vs The DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1166

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai Bench, granted a fresh opportunity of hearing, which had failed to offer rental income to tax. The assessee submitted that it was merely a rent collection agent for 32 individual co-owners of a property known as "Wavoo Mansion" and not the owner of the premises.

This relief was granted conditionally. The bench of S. R. Raghunatha and S.S. Viswanethra Ravi directed the assessee to pay a cost of ₹10,000 to the State Legal Aid Authority, Madras High Court, within 30 days and to produce proof of such payment before the Assessing Officer. Similar directions were issued for related assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17.

DevaramSrinivasa Reddy vs The DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1167

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs as unexplained investment based on the document found during search and rejected the claim of dumb document as the assessee himself admitted on his sworn statement.The assessee proprietor of M/s. Srinivasa Infrastructures, and his wife, Smt. Krishna Veni Kandala, were subjected to a search and seizure operation on 06.02.2020 at their business premises.

The tribunal rejected the assessee’s claim that the cash was sourced from partnership firm withdrawals, as the CIT(A) found that the withdrawals were accounted for other purposes. The tribunal concluded that the assessees failed to prove the source of the Rs. 50 lakhs cash payment.

AstavinayakGramin Bigar Sheti vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1168

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and condoned a 607-day delay in filing an appeal due to assessment order being passed on the surrendered pan.

The two-member bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member), observed that the assessee had a justifiable cause for the delay, as the assessment order was passed on a surrendered PAN. The tribunal also observed that the surrendered PAN was no longer actively monitored. The tribunal held that the delay was unintentional and without mala fide intent. The tribunal observed that the assessee’s explanation was sufficient for condonation of delay.

Rahul Goel vsITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1169

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench held that a bank passbook cannot be treated as ‘books of account’ for the purpose of invoking Section 68 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961.The assessee, Rahul Goel, a small commission agent dealing in plastic scrap, was subjected to an addition of ₹88.91 lakh under Section 68 by the Assessing Officer, who treated cash and cheque deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts as unexplained cash credits.

The Tribunal concluded that the very basis for applying Section 68 in this instance was lacking, while finding validity in the assessee's reasoning.

The Ruby MillsLimited vs Pr. Commissioner of IncomeTax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1170

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) contributions can qualify for deductions under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if the donations are made to institutions registered under Section 80G and comply with the section’s requirements.

The bench relied on the decisions from the Mumbai Tribunal, including DCIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. and Dalal and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, which held that CSR donations are eligible for 50% deduction under Section 80G if the recipient institutions are registered under the section and other conditions are met.

Sourya TowersPvt. Ltd vs DCIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1171

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the loss of Rs. 64,72,52,645/- on abandoned Amritsar real estate project is an allowable revenue deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal further held that the loss was revenue in nature, as it was incurred in the ordinary course of business and allowed its recognition in the Assessment Year 2012-13 due to events after the balance sheet date.

Saida, SaidaTrading Co. vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1172

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) refused to condone the delay, and held that the unavailability of the taxpayer to sign appeal documents due to absence from station was insufficient to constitute a "reasonable cause."

The Tribunal held that the power to condone delay cannot be exercised in the absence of a reasonable cause. It dismissed the appeal as it was barred by the limitation. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

The A.C.I.T vsM/s PGF Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1173

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] order that allowed deductions of Rs. 2.93 crore in interest expenses and Rs. 4.01 crore in management expenses as they were incurred for business purposes under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal bench observed that the assessee had incurred Rs. 28.59 crore in management and other expenses, and the CIT(A) had correctly verified that the disallowed Rs.4.01 crore was genuine and related to new business activities. It upheld the deduction under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Ram BishalSharma vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1174

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) overturned an ex-parte dismissal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] citing invalid service of notices, as the assessee had chosen not to receive communications via email in Form 35.

The Tribunal referred to a prior ITAT Raipur decision in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT which addressed a similar issue of an ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A)/NFAC. It also cited Supreme Court rulings, including Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Union and Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar, citing that the right to be heard under Article 14 of the Constitution is fundamental, and appellate authorities must adjudicate appeals on merits.

Mrs. RomaPrakash Chhugani vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1175

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an addition of Rs. 1.36 crore made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing substantiated source of investment for a property purchased in joint ownership with her son.

The two-member bench, comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member), observed that the assessee sufficiently explained her non-appearance due to a change in address. The Tribunal observed that the assessee substantiated the entire Rs. 1.43 crore investment through documented sources: Rs. 20,27,300 from the joint account, Rs. 21,60,527 from her son’s account, Rs. 37,61,175 from her husband’s account, and Rs. 63,94,498 from the HDFC loan.

Mr.SanandSankardas vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1176

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside an assessment order adding Rs. 69.99 lakh as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the notice issued by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) was invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.

The two-member bench comprising Ms. Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Raj Kumar Chauhan (Judicial Member), observed that the AO was aware of the assessee’s NRI status, as acknowledged in the order under Section 148A(d) dated 20.04.2022. The Tribunal held that the notice was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, rendering the assessment proceedings void. It further noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and property purchase agreements, to explain the source of funds.

KasmaPrathmikShishak Sahakari vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1177

The Bengaluru Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied merely on technical grounds such as a delayed e-verification, if the return was otherwise filed in response to a valid statutory notice under Section 142(1) and the claim was properly made.

The bench of Manish Borad pointed out that filing the return under Section 139(1) alone is not required by any of the preconditions under Section 80A(5). Additionally, it determined that the assessee's uncontested entitlement for deduction and compliance evidenced by a proper return under Section 142(1) deserved relief.

DTC TradingCOvs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1178

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside an ex-parte appellate order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC after noting that the assessee’s counsel was suffering from depression and memory loss, which prevented him from properly defending the case.

The ITAT remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present his case afresh, while also placing an obligation on the assessee to cooperate fully with the proceedings.

RavindraJomaBhagat vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1179

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has observed that mere procedural delays should not be allowed to defeat a meritorious case, especially when the taxpayer is a senior citizen facing genuine hardships.

The bench of Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) and R K Panda (Vice President) condoned the delay and restored all six appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits by a speaking order, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal also imposed a cost of ₹30,000 for non-cooperation before the CIT(A), to be deposited before final disposal of the appeals.

BiolifeMedicalPvt. Ltd vs ACIT, Circle CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1180

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has scaled down an ad hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) on various business expenses, citing lack of proper evidence from both sides.

The bench of Amitabh Shukla (Accountant member) and Mahavir Singh (Vice President) deemed it appropriate to reduce the disallowance to 4% of the total disputed expenses instead of 10%. The Tribunal clarified that this reduction was made only to resolve the dispute in the larger interest of justice and should not be treated as a binding precedent for future cases.

G. N.AdgaonkarJewels vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1181

In a matter of jewellers and traders dealing with unregistered vendors, the Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that an adhoc disallowance of purchases without complete verification is unsustainable in law.

The ITAT held that there was no flaw in the books of accounts or the quantitative records, which were properly audited and approved year after year, noting the fact that the simple lack of response from a few minor suppliers does not automatically make the entire purchase unverifiable. The AO's ad hoc disallowance, which the CIT(A) confirmed, was seen to be unwarranted in the absence of any proof of fraudulent purchases or inexplicable expenditure.

GanapathyPanneerselvamvs The Income Tax Office CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1182

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that there is no legal bar on an assessee retaining cash for a reasonable period if the source of the funds is traceable and explained.

The Tribunal held that merely because there was a gap between withdrawal and redeposit, it could not be presumed that the funds had vanished or were spent otherwise, especially when no evidence to the contrary was produced.

VardhamanVasundharaFamily Trust vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1183

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Pune Bench has held that an appeal cannot be disposed of merely on a technical ground without adjudicating the substantive issue on merits, especially when the assessee’s claim involves an apparent arithmetical adjustment relating to set-off of brought forward capital loss amounting to ₹52,20,899.

The bench directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue of the capital loss set-off after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. It also directed the assessee to cooperate fully by filing all necessary documents and not seek adjournments without sufficient cause.

M/s.CorporateInternational Financial Services Ltd vs PCIT (central) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1184

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCIT ) cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 to disallow interest on loans when the core issue of the underlying loan’s genuineness is already pending before the CIT(A) in appeal.

The bench of Yogesh Kumar (Accountant member) and M. Balaganesh (judicial member) decided that if an issue is already pending before the CIT(A), it cannot be reopened under Section 263 or any aspect that flows immediately from it. This ruling was based on the Madras High Court's ruling in Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO [409 ITR 567].

ITO vsBhuvanSharma CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1185

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of multiple additions made purely on estimates and without issuing a proper show cause notice, holding that such additions violate the principles of natural justice.

The bench completely rejected the Revenue's grounds of appeal, citing precedents such as Prashant Pratap Ahir vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune) and the Supreme Court's established rule that additions cannot be upheld based solely on suspicion. The ITAT denied the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s ruling to remove all of the contested additions.

Income TaxOfficer vs Bhopal Sanchi Highways P. Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1186

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the deletion of an addition exceeding ₹11 crore made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards alleged unexplained trade payables.

The tribunal held that since the sum in question pertained to an earlier year’s capital expenditure already recorded in the books, it could not be treated as unexplained trade credit for the subsequent year merely because of an inadvertent misstatement in the return. The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal as it was not able to contradict findings of the CIT(A).

Mrs. AshaGuptavs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1187

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded back an addition of ₹40 lakh made under Section68 of the income tax act, 1961, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the matter afresh after giving the assessee one final chance to substantiate the genuineness of the unsecured loan and the movement of funds.

The Tribunal stated that the assessee's failure to reply to the AO's notices could be interpreted negatively and that this would be the last opportunity to provide a complete explanation of the funding source.

BabuRamAggarwal vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1188

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the higher tax rate under this provision cannot be invoked for transactions undertaken prior to 1 April 2017.

The case arose from an appeal by the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition made under Section 69C, where the Assessing Officer (AO) had sought to apply the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE for an unexplained expenditure of ₹3.61 lakh related to Assessment Year 2012-13.

The ITAT directed the AO to recompute the tax liability without applying the enhanced rate under Section 115BBE and instead apply the applicable rate as it stood before the amendment, which was 30%.

ACIT vs B.K.Sales Corporation CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1189

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed an addition of over ₹3.83 crore made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) under Section 36(1)(iii), holding that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by going beyond the scope of issues for which the case was originally selected.

The bench of Mahavir Singh (Judicial member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant member) stressed that CBDT directives have statutory force and bind assessing authorities, citing well-established precedents from the jurisdictional High Court in Best Plastics Pvt. Ltd. as well as comparable decisions from the Punjab & Haryana and Calcutta High Courts. It referenced the vigilance guidelines issued by CBDT, which caution AOs against going beyond their mandate without the necessary approval and documentation.

ARPIT GOELvsITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1190

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed reassessment orders for three consecutive years after finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of Income tax act, 1961 without obtaining the mandatory prior approval from the competent authority under Section 151.

The bench of M Balaganesh ( Accountant members) and C.N. Prasad (Judicial member) ruled clearly that the reassessment procedures for all three years were unlawful ab initio and should be quashed outright since there was no evidence that the AO had obtained the necessary consent prior to sending out the letters under Section 148.

ANTARFOUNDATIONvs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1191

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside an order denying registration under Section 12A and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to furnish the required details.

The bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) and C.N. Prasad (Judicial member) instructed the CIT(E) to decide the registration application again after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to submit all necessary documents and explanations, pointing out that denying a legitimate charitable organization a chance to defend itself because of an internal error would go against the principles of natural justice.

ShreeSaurashtraPatel Seva Mandal Education vs The CIT(Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1192

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to deny Section 80G registration after finding that the trust failed to justify large donations made to other charitable trusts that were not directly linked to its core educational activities.

The ITAT bench of Vice President Dr. BRR Kumar and Judicial Member T.R. SenthilKumar concluded that the trust’s failure to substantiate how the donated funds supported its educational mission justified the rejection of the Section 80G application.

AQUAKIOSKINDIAPRIVATE LIMITED vs ITO, WARD 3(1) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1193

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed an addition of over ₹14 lakh under Section 69B of the income tax act, 1961, holding that the investment was inadvertently made using a different PAN but was duly disclosed in the company’s financial statements filed under its main PAN.

The ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal, directed the deletion of the addition, and instructed the AO to update the department’s records by verifying both PANs and ensuring that the correct one is used for future compliance. At the same time, the Tribunal reminded the assessee to avoid such administrative lapses going forward to prevent unnecessary reassessment controversies.

ShreeKadavaPatel Gau Seva vs The CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1194

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] for rejecting fresh applications filed by the assessee on procedural grounds. The ITAT directed the CIT(E) to treat the applications as valid and adjudicate them on merits.

The bench set aside the CIT(E)’s orders and restored the matter. The ITAT, comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member), directed the assessee to furnish all requisite information and documents and to cooperate fully with the proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Saumya MittalvsACIT-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1195

The assessing officer (AO) had disallowed a short-term capital loss of Rs. 61,13,842 claimed by the assessee, Saumya Mittal, Managing Director of Eurobearings India Pvt. Limited (EUBI) for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee had sold 1,35,86,332 shares of EUBI to his father for Rs. 74,72,480, which were originally acquired for Rs. 1,35,86,332 in February-March 2017.

The bench held that oral arrangements among family members could be legally valid if supported by conduct and documentation. The ITAT noted that the burden of proving a transaction as a sham lies with the Revenue, not the taxpayer.

Smt. ShobhavsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1196

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), condoned a 66-day delay in filing an appeal, noting the COVID-19 lockdown and the preoccupation of the assessee’s Chartered Accountant (CA) as sufficient cause for the delay.
The bench observed that the CIT(A) had failed to verify
the service date mentioned in Form 35 and erroneously dismissed the appeal. The
tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the merits of the case, particularly
the addition of Rs. 5,70,000 under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, after
granting the assessee a fair hearing.

ITAT Acknowledges Assessee’s Non-Appearance Due to Medical Emergency: Restores 80G Approval Matter to CIT(E) Rishi SamskrutiVidya Kendra vs CIT(Exemptions) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1197

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the cancellation of registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Rishi Samskruti Vidya Kendra, a trust based in Bangalore, noting the medical emergency faced by the trustee.

The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on 25.06.2025. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair opportunities for assessees, especially in cases involving unforeseen hardships. The ITAT, comprising Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) and Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Technical Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal.

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the assessee for alleged non-compliance with a notice issued under Section 142(1) by noting that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had passed a perverse order by incorrectly stating the penalty amount and failing to consider the safeguards under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act.

The ITAT, comprising Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member), set aside the NFAC’s order, directed the deletion of the penalty, and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed appeals filed by Sampark Management Consultancy LLP, quashing reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal held that the notices were invalid due to the absence of proper sanction from the competent authority as mandated under Section 151 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021.

The ITAT, comprising Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal.

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal of Schaeffler India Ltd. on finding that ALP recomputed by TPO is Invalid as the assessee followed the prescribed method (TNMM) under section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was observed that neither the TPO nor CIT(A) ever held that the ALP was computed outside the statutory provisions, or that the study report lacked diligence or was not prepared in good faith.

The two member bench of Dr. Brr Kumar, Vice President & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member observed that the assessee had used a prescribed method (TNMM) under section 92C of the Act and disclosed the selection of filters, comparables, and operating margin computation in the transfer pricing study report.

The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that ‘Wafers’ are entitled to reduced rate of excise duty under exemption notification and set aside the order imposing penalty under Excise Act.

A two member bench of Justice Dilip Gupta, President and Hemambika R. Priya, Member (Technical) observed that what is important to notice is that the show cause notice did not call upon the appellant to submit any reply on this aspect now sought to be contended by the learned special counsel for the department. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner also does not deal with this aspect. A new ground cannot be taken up by the department to defend the order in this appeal, particularly when the department has not filed Cross Appeal.

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition of over Rs. 4 crore in tax additions made by the revenue authorities as it was found that the AO failed to consider the supplementary agreement between the assessee and RNTC.

The two member bench of T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member have observed that the Assessing Officer failed to consider a supplementary agreement allowing the firm to carry out additional work for individual plot owners.

The ITAT Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that income tax exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be denied merely due to a delay in filing the mandatory Form 10B, if the other conditions for claiming the exemption are otherwise fulfilled.

The tribunal ruled that the delay was a curable defect and should not stand in the way of the trust’s legitimate claim for exemption. It restored the exemption and allowed the appeal, clarifying that the claim under Section 11 could not be denied simply due to late filing of Form 10B when all other substantive conditions were satisfied.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that only the profit element embedded in unaccounted receipts can be taxed, not the entire amount of such receipts.

The two-member bench, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member), observed that the seized materials confirmed that both unaccounted receipts and payments were related to the assessee’s real estate business.

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the income tax addition of 45.5 Lakhs on bogus agricultural income. It was found that the explanation of the assessee that there has been a hike in agricultural income by three times in the current year and expenses have gone down from 76% to 43% cannot be held to be reasonable, logical and acceptable.

The two member bench of Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-President and T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member dismissed the appeal.

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which denied rebate claim under section 87A due to the omission in Original Return and allowed Tax Rebate which was claimed through Revised Return.

The Bench directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the rebate of Rs. 21,350 under Section 87A, as claimed in the revised return. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT has set aside the ex-parte appellate order against Shivraj Shankar Gundewadi, a petrol pump operator from Maharashtra, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer(AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted lapses by the assessee’s former consultant and the failure of the authorities to consider material facts on record, which led to the disallowance of over ₹12.53 lakh allegedly treated as unexplained money.

The ITAT observed that while the assessee had failed to respond to multiple notices, the case still warranted reconsideration in light of facts already disclosed, especially given the nature of the business. The Tribunal, consisting of Accountant Member Manish Borad, directed the assessee to update his contact information and e-mail ID on the Income Tax portal and cooperate fully in the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the disallowance of Rs. 15,00,327 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule, 1962, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) observed that the AO had examined the assessee’s profit and loss account and found that the exempt income reported in Schedule BP was disproportionately low compared to the investments made.

The Delhi Bench of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961,holding it unsustainable as all additions made in the assessment were already deleted and the claims were based on a CA-certified audit report.

The two member bench comprising Vimal Kumar (Judicial Member) and S Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) noted that the penalty order dated 31.03.2022 was based on the assessment order dated 30.12.2017. Since all additions made in that assessment were already deleted by the tribunal in its order dated 31.05.2024, the basis for penalty no longer existed.

The Amritsar Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deletes ₹15 crore protective addition after finding that a bank account was fraudulently opened in the name of the assessee, who has no knowledge about the account.

The two member bench comprising Udayan Dasgupta (Judicial Member) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) heard both sides and examined the records. It noted that the assessee was a licensed liquor retailer and had declared a turnover of ₹83.36 lakhs, which matched the genuine purchases shown in Form 26AS and routed through his HDFC Bank account.

GSTAT: The Backbone of GST Dispute Resolution in India – Structure, Role, and Impact

Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), observing that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on the question of jurisdiction in a time-barred reassessment proceeding before remanding the case. The appeals were filed by Eyegear Optics India Private Limited against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, for the Assessment Years 2012–13 and 2013–14.

The GST Appellate Tribunal is more than just a dispute resolution forum—it is the backbone of India’s GST regime, ensuring fairness, consistency, and efficiency in tax administration. Its multi-tiered structure, expert membership, and clear procedures make it a model for tax tribunals worldwide. As GST continues to evolve, GSTAT’s role in shaping the law and fostering trust between taxpayers and authorities will only grow in importance.

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in the case of the assessee Airona Tiles Ltd., restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The appeal was made on the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2016–17.

The tribunal observed that considering the totality of facts and circumstances. In the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. As a result, the appeal has been allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter now returns to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive and fair disposal.

ITAT Restores 80G Application of Assessee: Rejection Held Premature and in Violation of Natural Justice

ShriBhattMewada Brahm Samaj vs The Commissioner of Income TaxCITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1031

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has restored the matter of assessee Bhatt Mewada Brahm Samaj to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [CIT(E)] for fresh adjudication. The case pertains to an application filed by the assessee under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for permanent approval, following an earlier provisional registration under the same provision. The trust has been engaged in charitable activities since January 28, 2010, focusing on work in the fields of education, healthcare, youth development, and environmental awareness.

The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) has been directed to consider the submissions made by the trust and pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting a proper opportunity of hearing. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Raipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed an appeal upholding the disallowance of ₹25.81 lakh claimed as a deduction for Employees’ Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) contributions deposited after the statutory due date but before filing the return, relying upon the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, (Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016)

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently remanded a matter relating to a trust back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], Ahmedabad, for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the rejection of the trust’s application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was premature and in disregard of principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for reconsideration. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity to the trust to furnish the documents required for the registration process. The Tribunal also reminded the assessee to cooperate fully and ensure compliance with procedural mandates, including Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the penalty imposed for failure to file Form 15CA on non-taxable foreign remittances, observing that although Section 195(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was amended effective June 1, 2015, the rules prescribing the form and procedure were notified only from April 1, 2016.