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

Boppana Ashok Kumar vsTheIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1585

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Visakhapatnam Bench, has held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is under a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution.

The bench of Ravish Sood (JM) and S. Balakrishnan (AM), relying on the provisions of Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act and the Bombay High Court ruling in CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), stated that once an appeal is filed, the CIT(A) must examine the assessment order on merits.

Prem Lata Sharma vsI.T.O. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1586

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ranchi Bench, has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the case of assessee, who had deposited ₹26.60 lakh during the demonetization period, claimed to be sourced from her business of purchase and sale of building materials.

The bench of Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (AM) and George Mathan (JM) set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO, directing him to depute an Inspector to verify the assessee’s claim of carrying on business in building materials and to re-adjudicate the issue after granting her a proper opportunity of being heard.

Thermo FisherScientific IndiaPrivate Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax-15(3)(1) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1588

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that manufacturing, supply, and maintenance contracts acquired through slump sale arrangements qualify as intangible assets or, alternatively, as goodwill, and are therefore eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT bench comprising Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) observed that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier orders in the assessee’s own cases for AYs 2010 - 11 and 2015-16, where depreciation on such business and commercial rights was allowed.

M/s. Finecab Wires& CablesPvt vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1589

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to reconsider its claim for the concessional corporate tax regime under Section 115BAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which had been denied solely due to non-filing of Form 10-IC.

The bench of Ravish Sood (JM) and Madhusudan Sawdia (AM) observed that while the assessee indeed failed to file Form 10-IC, it had clearly opted for the concessional regime in the ITR filed within Section 139(1) deadline.

Lions Club of KhammamCharitableTrust vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1590

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of the Hyderabad bench set aside the order which was passed by the income tax quasi-judicial authority as being non-speaking, cryptic and mechanical. The tribunal remitted the order against the Lions Club of Khammam Charitable Trust for reconsideration.

The two member bench of Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member held that non-speaking, cryptic, and mechanical orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities are not sustainable in law. The CIT(Exemption), while disposing off the application filed by the assessee trust for permanent registration under Section 12AB of the Act was expected to provide a reasoned order and specific findings after considering the material on record.

Paltex vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1591

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, ruled to delete an addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unsecured loans. While granting this relief, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by remanding disallowances on interest to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in Assessment Year 2013-14.

Judicial Member, Pawan Singh, held that the bank passbook showing the debit entry corresponding to the loan, was important evidence establishing the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2,50,000 under Section 68 and also allowed the consequential deduction of Rs. 19,333 interest on the loan.

Jain Natural PicklesPrivateLimited vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1592

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur, has held that rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is permissible where an inadvertent mistake in return filing results in double taxation of the same income.

The Bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member and Dr. Mitha Lal Meena Accountant Member, ruled in favour of the assessee. It distinguished the Goetze (India) ruling by observing that the present case was not about making a new claim but correcting an error that resulted in double taxation.

Mangalam Developers vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1593

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai examined the validity of additions made under Section 43CA read with Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to flat sales below market value, and directed that such claims must be reconsidered where evidence of prior-year agreements and advance payments exists.

The division bench of Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member, ruled that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution. The bench emphasized that under Section 250 and Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the appellate authority is statutorily bound to decide appeals on merits, irrespective of the assessee’s appearance.

Shri Basanthi Lal Sah vs TheIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1594

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad remanded the matter of alleged Rs. 10.51 crore addition back to the Assessing Officer (AO) as it failed to verify the carry out the independent verification with the GST( Goods and Services Tax ) Department on the genuinity of the purchases.

The Bench comprises Judicial Member Ravish Sood and Accountant Member G. Manjunatha, held that the appellant had indeed filed invoices, e-way bills, and bank records, which prima facie supported the claim. However, the short lifespan of the suppliers’ GST registrations, their non-filing of returns, and non-compliance with statutory requirements created serious doubts.

Shri Naresh Kumar vs Income TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1595

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad, held that the rejection of books under Section 145 during assessment proceedings does not retrospectively nullify the obligation to comply with section 44AB of the Act within the prescribed time.

The bench said that the requirement to obtain and furnish the audit report within the due date prescribed under section 44AB of the Act is mandatory, and the default is not cured by obtaining or furnishing the audit report belatedly, even if before completion of assessment.

Income Tax Officer vs RamlalManekchand HUF CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1597

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has remanded a case involving alleged bogus purchases worth ₹25.17 crore to the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh inquiry, after noting that both the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] failed to examine the Goods and Services Tax (GST) angle.

While remanding the matter to the AO, the bench of T.R. Senthilkumar (JM) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (AM) directed a comprehensive re-examination. The AO has been instructed to verify ITC claims from GST authorities, correlate findings with assessments of the five suppliers, and trace the flow of funds through their bank accounts.

M/s Allahdad Tannery vs DCIT-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1598

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Lucknow, examined whether an assessee is entitled to claim simultaneous deductions under Section 80IB and Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld that both deductions can be claimed together, provided the aggregate does not exceed the total profits of the business.

Representing the assessee, Ashish Jaiswal, argued that judicial precedent by the Supreme Court in Shital Fibers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, supported its right to claim deductions under both Section 80IB and Section 80HHC simultaneously, subject to the ceiling that the combined deductions do not exceed the total profits of the business.the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. Therefore, allowing the assessee’s appeal in full.

Shri Sadguru NirupadeshwaraNitya Dasoha Charitale Trust vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1599

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore Bench, has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] which had classified Charitable Trust as a religious trust and denied it approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the trust’s activities, such as free feeding (Dasoha), providing education, healthcare, agricultural awareness, and other welfare measures, were predominantly charitable in nature and not wholly religious. It directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the trust’s applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G afresh.

Royal Impex vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1600

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that Sections 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 operate independently and that failure to file Form 26Q under Section 194C(7) does not nullify the exemption available under Section 194C(6).

The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance of transportation expenses back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification of the assessee’s evidence before making any disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).

Kaliyaperumal Padmanaban vs TheITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1601

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai ruled that the income tax assessment order issued without mentioning Document Identification Number (DIN) in is void ab initio.

The Bench comprising of Judicial Member, Aby T. Varkey and Accountant Member, Amitabh Shukla, rejected the respondent’s argument. It was held that the CBDT Circular mandates that the DIN must be quoted in the body of the communication itself, barring limited exceptions which were not applicable in this case. The absence of DIN in the order itself constitutes a violation of the binding Circular, rendering the assessment order invalid ab initio.

Gaytri Devi Sharma vs Income TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1602

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur, has ruled that a notice issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid, rendering the addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the order in full and allowed the appeal.

The Bench comprising Accountant Member Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai and Judicial Member Narinder Kumar, accepted the additional ground that the jurisdictional notice was defective. The bench held that since the notice under Section 142(1) was issued by ITO Ward-7(1), Jaipur, whereas the territorial jurisdiction lay with ITO Ward-7(3), Jaipur, the initiation of proceedings itself was invalid.

Shiv Prasad Ram vs I.T.O CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1603

The Ranchi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for readjudication in a dispute over an alleged ₹39.91 lakh time deposit with Bank of Baroda.

The two member bench comprising George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member ) examined the submissions and observed that the assessment order was passed ex parte based on information regarding a time deposit of ₹39,91,000/- in the Bank of Baroda, Ranchi, allegedly in the name of the assessee. The assessee denied having such a deposit.

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited vsDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1604

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai Bench has deleted additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on demonetization cash deposits, relying on Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines and the precedent set in the TASMAC ruling. The Tribunal also allowed relief on disallowed securitization finance costs.

The Bench comprising of Vice President, George George K. and Accountant Member, Amitabh Shukla, found merit in the appellant’s submissions. The Tribunal held that interest income rightfully belonged to SPVs, and taxing it in the assessee’s hands would result in double taxation. The addition of ₹28.99 crore was therefore deleted.

E T Devassy and Sons FinancePvt. Ltd vs Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1605

The Cochin Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] order and directed a fresh hearing in the matter concerning an addition of INR 25 lakh treated as unexplained cash contribution by directors for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2017-18.

The two member bench comprising Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) considered the submissions and material on record. The Assessing Officer had added INR 25,00,000 under Section 69A as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) relied on Section 68, though the assessee had not been put on notice about it.

Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax (TDS) vs Piramal Enterprises Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1606

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that payments made to Piramal Enterprises Limited for acquiring loans, including NCDs, ICDs, and term loans, were part of the purchase consideration and not “interest,” and therefore, no Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was applicable under sections 193 and 194A of Income Tax Act,1961.

The tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), which had relied on the above decisions and concluded that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under section 194A. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

Dilip Mohandas Devani vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1607

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) partly allowed the appeal concerning the treatment of capital gains, cost of improvement, and deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) observed that the adoption of stamp duty value under Section 50C was in line with the law and found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).

Sevugan Pethaperumal vsPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1608

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, dealt with the core issue of whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai (PCIT), was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961, in relation to the assessment of rental income disclosed under the head “income from other sources.”

The Bench comprising of George George K Vice President and Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member, observed that the AO had indeed carried out sufficient enquiries during the limited scrutiny proceedings and had accepted the appellant’s position after due consideration. The Bench held that the distinction between inadequate enquiry and lack of enquiry was vital, and in this case, it was not a matter of no inquiry.

M/s. Priya Constructionvs TheDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1609

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, held that revisional powers under Section 263 are justified where the Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the returned income without proper verification.

The Bench comprising of Vice President, George George K and Accountant Member, Amitabh Shukla, upheld the PCIT’s order. The Tribunal observed that while a statement under Section 133A alone cannot form the basis of an addition, in this case, it supplemented tangible findings during survey revealing inflated unsubstantiated expenses.

Asst. Commissioner ofIncome Taxvs M/s. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1610

The Ranchi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[ CIT(A)]’s deletion of a ₹6 crore addition based on the director’s statement during a search for AY 2014-15.

The two member bench comprising George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member) considered the rival submissions and reviewed the assessment order. It observed that the AO had relied only on the director’s statement, in which the assessee offered ₹6 crores as additional income for the assessment year 2014-15.

The Dy. Commissioner ofIncomeTax vs Kalpana CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1611

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai Bench, has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] allowing a substantial deduction claimed by a hospital under Section 35AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after accepting credible documentary evidence establishing that the facility was a 100-bed hospital.

The Tribunal, comprising Aby T. Varkey (Judicial Member) and Jagadish (Accountant Member), rejected the Revenue’s objections, holding that the evidence clearly established the hospital’s 100-bed status.

Sicily Paul vs IncomeTaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1612

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has provided major relief to an individual taxpayer by holding that cash deposits made during the demonetization period, sourced from withdrawals from the Non-Resident External (NRE) account of her son-in-law, could not be taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant member) directed deletion of an addition of ₹12,29,365, observing that the explanation offered was reasonable, supported by evidence, and not rebutted by the Revenue.

The ACIT, Circle vsMaximalInfrastructure Private Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1613

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that interest paid to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on delayed payment of External Development Charges (EDC) is not penal in nature and is allowable as revenue expenditure.

The bench of Manish Agarwal and Madhumita Roy dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the order allowing the deduction holding that interest paid to HUDA on delayed EDC payments is deductible.

Pramod Manikchand Dugadvs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1614

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has quashed an assessment order framed within four weeks if the assessing officer rejected the assessee’s objections. The officer has to give a cooling period before passing the final order or further proceeding with the matter.

The bench noted the Bombay High Court ruling which held that “if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections so filed, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of service of the said order on objections, on the assessee. Accordingly rule is made absolute”.

Smt. Mita Chatterjee vsIncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1615

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted an addition of ₹70,46,028 made in the hands of the wife, holding that the investment in a jointly owned property was entirely made by her husband and not by her.

The bench of Madhumita Roy (JM) and Manish Agarwal (AM) held that the addition in the hands of the assessee was unsustainable since she was only a joint holder in name and not contributor to the purchase. Therefore, the bench deleted the addition of ₹70,46,028.

Pyung HWA India PrivateLimitedvs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1616

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai bench, has ruled that suspicion unsupported by evidence cannot be a valid ground for disallowance of business expenditure.

The Bench comprising of George George K, Vice President, and S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member, ruled in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal observed that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had rejected the books of accounts or demonstrated that the expenses were not genuine.

KalyanasundaravalliPremanandhanvs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1617

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench, allowed the appeal by holding that cash deposits made during demonetization could not be taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when backed by bank records and the recognized concept of household “pin money” savings. The Tribunal found the explanation credible and directed deletion of the addition.

The Bench comprising of Manu Kumar Giri, Judicial Member and S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member observed that the assessee had furnished a credible explanation backed by documentary evidence, including bank statements and cash flow records.

The JambotiMultipurposeCo-operative Society Ltd vs Pr.CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1618

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Panaji Bench has directed to verify matters on the issue of number of associate members of cooperative society being violative of Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two member bench of Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member & G D Padmahshali Accountant Member remitted the matter needs to be verified and reasons for claim should be justified and the assessing officer shall adjudicate a fresh on merits on the disputed issue and shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee should also cooperate in submitting the information.

Chinmastika Sidharthavs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1619

In a recent case, the Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal (CIT(A)) to decide afresh on the issue of rejection of books of account under section 145 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the absence of documents.

The single bench of Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) remitted the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to dispose of the appeal without any inference on the observations of earlier order passed by him.

WorkensteinCollaborative SpacesPvt. Ltd vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1620

The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted a 25% disallowance on purchases made from non-filer suppliers after the assessee furnished sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

The two member bench comprising George George K (Vice President) and Jagadish (Accountant Member) heard both sides and reviewed the records. It noted that the AO had disallowed 25% of the purchases because the suppliers were non-filers and did not respond to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act.

Vikram Narendra Patilvs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1621

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, noting that the ₹10 lakh cash deposit claimed as a gift from his deceased grandmother lacked sufficient evidence, and granted relief by deleting ₹5 lakh.

A single member bench of Manish Borad (Accountant Member) heard both parties and reviewed the records. The assessee had challenged the addition of ₹10 lakh sustained by the CIT(A) out of the total ₹14.50 lakh added by the AO as unexplained cash deposits.

Pradeep Jeyavelu vs TheIncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1622

The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that the minor daughter’s share deposited as per court order cannot be clubbed with the father’s income.

Since the amount was deposited under court directions and the assessee had no control over its utilization, the tribunal held that it could not be taxed in his hands.Accordingly, the appellate tribunal deleted the addition related to the minor daughter’s share and also allowed the brokerage charges, which had earlier been disallowed for want of evidence. Thus, the assessee’s appeal was allowed.

Income Tax Officer vsM/sChaukers CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1623

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that income assessed in the proprietor's hand cannot be assessed again in dissolved partnership.

The two member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member) heard both parties, perused the lower authorities’ orders, and examined the materials on record. It was noted that the assessee had not filed a return of income for the year under appeal because the firm ceased to exist after the death of one partner in 2011.

DCIT vs SinconInfrastructurePrivate Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1624

The Patna Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order deleting an addition of ₹4.98 crore for purchases from non-filing suppliers, as the assessee furnished complete evidence.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) noted that the assessee had made purchases totaling ₹4,98,11,922/- from seven parties, which the AO claimed had not filed income-tax returns and had mostly not responded to notices under section 133(6).

Commissioner of IncomeTax vsNippon Life India Asset Management Limited

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1625

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited by holding that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Act,1961 should be restricted only to investments that actually yielded exempt income.

The two member bench comprising Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) reviewed the submissions, record, and law, and noted that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should be limited to investments that actually generated exempt income during the year.

Supujita AdivsoryandConsultancy vs The DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1626

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has waived late fees levied under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for delayed filing of quarterly TDS ( Tax Deducted at Source) returns.

The Tribunal observed that while Section 234E prescribes a fee for delayed filing, the peculiar facts of the case merited relief. It noted that the assessee had substantiated the medical reasons behind the delay and had fully discharged its liability by paying TDS along with interest. Since the returns were filed before the fourth quarter’s due date, the Department suffered no inconvenience, nor were deductees deprived of credit.

Sonal Ashish Shah vsITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1627

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the genuineness of short-term capital gain (STCG) claimed by an assessee on the sale of shares, holding that when the transactions are routed through recognised stock exchange, registered broker, banking channel, and duly reflected in the Demat account, the Revenue cannot treat such income as unexplained or bogus merely on suspicion.

It was held by the bench that when the source of purchase is undisputed and transactions are transparent, deduction for cost of acquisition must be allowed, and the resultant gain cannot be treated as unexplained income.

DCIT vs M/s. RVREnterprises CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1628

The Hyderabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue of outstanding tax claims of the income tax department against a corporate debtor sold as a going concern, in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court rulings.

The bench of Vijay Pal Rao and Manjunatha G. observed that while the assessee had produced an intimation issued by the liquidator and a claims chart showing no claim filed by the Income Tax Department, there was no clear reference in the NCLT’s order or the liquidator’s sale certificate to specific claims lodged by various stakeholders, including the tax authorities.

Shri JigneshRamjibhaiPatel vsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1629

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad held the treatment of the long-term capital gain (LTCG) from sale of shares by revenue as unexplained cash credit was unjustified as it failed to establish any evidence of the involvement in manipulation or collusion with entry operators.

The bench of Narendra Prasad Sinha and Suchitra Kamble noted that the assessees had provided all necessary documents to substantiate their transactions. The purchase was made through banking channels, the shares were dematerialized, held for over 33 months, and sold through a recognized stock exchange with STT duly paid.

Ashapura Co-op. CreditSocietyLtd vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1630

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad has ruled on the eligibility of deductions claimed by a co-operative credit society in respect of interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks and a regional rural bank.

The Bench comprising Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member and Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountant Member held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in view of binding precedents of the Gujarat High Court.

ACIT vs EleconEngineeringCompany Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1631

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, has held that a belated return does not restrict the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation.

The Bench consisting of Judicial Member, Sanjay Garg and Accountant Member, Annapurna Gupta upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre.

Ram Lakhan vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1632

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that the penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based purely on estimation of income.

The bench of Khettra Mohan Roy and Madhumita Roy observed that the penalty order was entirely based on an estimated addition. Since estimation, by its nature, lacks concrete evidence of concealment or misreporting, penalty provisions cannot be invoked.

Shri Pradeep Tyagi HUFvs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1633

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has struck down an addition of ₹1 crore made under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in directly invoking the special tax provision without first identifying the proper charging section, such as Sections 68 to 69D.

The Bench of Judicial Member Madhumita Roy and Accountant Member Khettra Mohan Roy, observed that the AO had “fallen into palpable error” in jumping straight to Section 115BBE without fixing the addition under a charging section.

Prem Raj singh vsIncome TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1634

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be denied merely because the assessee did not deposit the sale proceeds in the Capital Gain Account Scheme (CGAS), if the entire sale consideration had already been invested in the purchase of a plot.

The bench of Khettra Mohan Roy and Madhumita Roy noted that the AO made modifications in the computation of capital gain and directed the AO to recompute the capital gains correctly after considering the assessee’s submissions and evidence, making it clear that the assessee must be given a proper opportunity of hearing.

Puthan PurayilAbdurahiman vsThe Assistant Commissioner CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1635

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that disclosure of additional income in response to a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the assessee is guilty of concealing particulars of income.

The bench noted that disclosure of additional income under Section 153C, by itself, cannot establish concealment of income unless the Revenue proves a clear nexus between seized materials and the assessee’s undisclosed income.

West Coast Fine Foods(India)Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1636

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, held that ad hoc income tax additions made on purchases and expenses cannot be sustained in the absence of any defects in the assessee’s audited books of accounts. Deleting additions exceeding ₹9.5 crore, the Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer’s (AO) estimation at five percent was contrary to law since the books were neither rejected nor found unreliable.

The Bench comprising Beena Pillai, Judicial Member and Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member held that ad hoc disallowances could not be sustained when the assessee’s books of accounts were neither rejected nor found defective. It observed that the AO had not disputed the genuineness of purchases or expenses and failed to invoke Section 145(3) before resorting to estimation under Section 144 of the Act.

Shakuntalam InvestmentandLeasing Limited vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1637

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, ruled that income tax assessments framed pursuant to search proceedings were void ab initio as they were based on a consolidated approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that such consolidated approvals were mechanical in nature and contrary to the statutory mandate requiring independent consideration for each assessment year.

The Bench comprising of Judicial Member, Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member, Krinwant Sahay held that the consolidated approval granted for multiple assessment years by one letter did not meet the statutory requirement of Section 153D.

ACIT vs Shri VipinKapur CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1638

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench held that an assessment framed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as the mandatory approval under Section 153D of the Act had been granted mechanically. The Tribunal annulled the assessment, ruling in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

The Bench composed of Judicial Member, Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member, Krinwant Sahay examined the approval letter and noted that it lacked any indication of independent application of mind. Citing binding precedents, including the decision of the Delhi High Court in PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) and of the Orissa High Court in Asst. CIT v. Serajjudin & Co. (2023), the Bench held that approvals under Section 153D cannot be a mere ritualistic formality or rubber-stamping exercise.

M/s S.I. MEDIA LLP vsThe Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1639

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Bangalore Bench, sets aside an order to the income tax department’s Assessing officer for verification of the issue of disallowance of indexed interest cost claimed by the assessee in computing capital gains.

The bench of Soundarajan K and Waseem Ahmed set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the assessee had already claimed deduction for the interest under another head of income. If not, the indexed interest cost could be considered as part of the cost of acquisition while computing capital gains; otherwise, it must be disallowed.

Siddhartha PattinaSahakariSangha Niyamita vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1640

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P must be determined with reference to the primary business activity of the cooperative society and not disqualified merely due to incidental dealings with non-members.

The ITAT directed the AO to verify the statutory requirement of deposits and allow the deduction. It clarified that the assessee’s eligibility for Section 80P relief cannot be denied simply because of incidental transactions with non-members or statutory deposits yielding interest.

The Deputy CommissionerofIncome Tax vs Vedprakash Devkinandan Chiripal CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1642

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, dismissed Revenue’s appeal ruling that subsequent conversion by the purchaser does not change the character of the agricultural land sold by the assessee.

The bench of Sidhartha Nautiyal and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar said that any subsequent conversion to non-agricultural use was the sole responsibility of the purchaser under law and not that of the seller.

Surya Roshni Limited vsPr.CIT-7 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1643

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi bench, set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) passed under Section 263 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, holding that the re-assessment order accepting share capital and premium could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue.

The Bench comprising Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member and Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member observed that inquiries were made on three separate occasions and that the assessee had provided comprehensive evidence establishing the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal held that inadequate inquiry cannot be equated with lack of inquiry, and since the AO had formed a possible view, the Pr. CIT could not substitute it.

ITO vs MAA VaishnoFuels Pvt. Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1644

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the deletion of alleged bogus sales and commission additions under section 68 and 69C of Income Tax Act,1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] after assessing evidence submitted by the assessee.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) noted that a search was conducted on M/s Maharaja Shree Agrasen Jee Aapno Ghar Pvt. Ltd. group of cases on 16.11.2017, which included Shri Rohit Sharma.

Clinisys (India)Private Limited vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1645

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) had no jurisdiction to disallow a genuine payment of ₹3.80 lakh towards leave encashment under Section 43B of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajeh Kumar (Accountant Member) after considering the submissions and examining the record, noted that out of the total provision of ₹32,98,103 created during the year, the assessee had adjusted ₹3,80,401 towards payment of leave encashment pertaining to earlier years. It held that such actual payment could not be disallowed by the AO/CPC.

Kushal Sengupta vsIncome Tax officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1646

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held a one-time settlement from Kotak Mahindra Old Life Insurance as capital in nature and fully disclosed, and deleted a penalty of ₹5.28 lakh imposed under section 271(1)(c) of Income TaxAct,1961.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) noted that the assessee, employed with Kotak Mahindra Old Life Insurance, received a one-time settlement as compensation for loss of income. He disclosed the amount in his return, claiming it as a capital receipt.

Hitesh Trading Compnayvs ITO Ward 34(3) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1647

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) refused the estimation of Gross Profit (GP) enhancement made by the Assessing Officer (AO) without considering any comparable case.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member) considered the submissions and records and held that the AO’s action could not be sustained since the books were not questioned. It noted that the AO had not doubted the sales or purchases and had not used comparable cases to justify a higher GP rate.

S. C. Johnson Pvt. Ltdvs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1648

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, has upheld a corporate taxpayer’s accounting treatment of goodwill arising out of amalgamation, ruling that amortization of goodwill is allowed while computing book profits under Section115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench of Judicial Member, Anubhav Sharma and Accountant Member, Manish Agarwal ruled in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that under either accounting method, the ultimate financial results would be similar, and hence the assessee’s claim could not be disallowed.

Nirma Limited vs TheDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1649

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, has ruled in favor of the assessee on the issue of depreciation on goodwill, holding that depreciation is allowable on goodwill arising from amalgamation for the assessment years under dispute. The Bench also clarified that the Finance Act, 2021 amendment excluding goodwill from the ambit of depreciation under Section 32 applies prospectively and does not affect earlier years.

The Bench further emphasized that once depreciation is granted in earlier years, the written down value of the block of assets becomes final and carries statutory protection under section 43(6) of the Act. The AO cannot reopen or tamper with the block of assets by re-examining earlier claims already accepted.

Mohammed Azhar vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1650

The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) grants an opportunity to substantiate claim on agricultural receipts treated as unexplained income under section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President) and Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member) noted that the assessee had not complied before the AO or the CIT(A) but had later produced documents showing ownership of 36 acres of agricultural land. It held that the claim of agricultural income could not be rejected without verification.

Bharat Associates vsACIT (OSD) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1651

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled on the issue of remuneration to partners under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and directed that the computation must be based on book profit after adding back survey income and disallowances.

The two-member bench comprising Gagan Goyal (Accountant Member) and Narinder Kumar (Judicial Member) observed that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the remuneration claim without considering the proper computation mechanism under Section 40(b).

Harish Kumar vs NFAC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1652

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi has held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beyond the statutory limitation period is unsustainable. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed a July 29, 2022 notice for Assessment Year 2015–16 and held the resulting reassessment proceedings to be void ab initio.

The Bench comprising of Mahavir Singh, Vice President and Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member observed that the limitation period had expired on March 31, 2022, and that the subsequent issuance of notice on July 29, 2022, was clearly beyond the permissible timeframe under Section 149 of the Act.

The Income Tax Officervs A. Kulanthaivel CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1653

The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of Rs. 4.66 crore added under Section 69A of Income Tax Act,1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] in the assessee’s individual Permanent Account Number (PAN), noting that all income and bank accounts were properly disclosed in the HUF return.

The two member bench comprising Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and S.R.Raghunatha (Accountant Member) reviewed the submissions, records, and lower authorities’ orders and noted that the assessee had mistakenly used his individual PAN instead of the HUF PAN for opening bank accounts for the business. It observed that the assessee had no individual income and all business income belonged to the HUF.

Shri Amardeep Sandhu vsThe ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1654

The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ordered a refund of ₹37.88 lakh within one month, holding that there was a short grant of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit on a property sale under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) found this reasoning vague, as it did not explain how another person’s name appeared in the TDS credit or why the explanation given was not acceptable. It observed that the CIT(A) ought to have verified the complete record before deciding the matter.

Cash Withdrawals During Demonetisation Taxed u/s 68: ITAT Deletes ₹62 Lakh Addition treating them as Business Turnover

Bhai Bhai Co vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1655

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted ₹62 lakh addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961, holding that cash withdrawals during demonetisation formed part of business turnover.

The two member bench comprising George Mathan(Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member) reviewed the submissions and records, including the paper book filed by the assessee counsel.

Labh Singh vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1656

The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the cash deposit addition of ₹25.25 lakh for an illiterate agriculturist, accepting the deposits as redeposits from his own accounts.

A single member bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) reviewed the submissions and records. It found that Rs. 36,38,041 was credited to the assessee’s account on FDR maturity, and withdrawals and subsequent deposits into Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank were clearly shown in the bank statements.

Pandaveswar CollieryEmployees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1657

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismisses the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn and grants liberty to file a fresh appeal if the section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act,1961 petition is not accepted.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) heard both parties, reviewed the record, and considered the submissions of the assessee counsel. It dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh appeal before the competent authority if the section 119(2)(b) petition was not accepted.

Prathamika KrishiPattina Sahakara Sangha Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1658

The Bangalore Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directs taxation on the net profit after verification, while noting that late filing disallowed the deduction under section 80P of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) heard the contentions of both parties and examined the record. The AO had held that, due to late filing, the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 80P. While the assessee was indeed ineligible for the deduction, the tribunal observed that income should be taxed on the net profit after allowing all related expenses.

Mohd. Husain vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1660

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2012-13, reducing the addition on unexplained investment to Rs. 1,32,000 and granting relief of Rs. 6,50,000, considering his socio-economic status.

The two member bench comprising Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) considered the assessee’s submissions and the departmental arguments and found that the full addition could not be sustained. It observed that the lower authorities had overlooked the assessee’s socio-economic status and his family’s past savings, which could have contributed to the investment.

Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs Seven Hills Project Private Limited

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1661

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in a case concerning service tax disallowance under section 43B of Income Tax Act,1961,for lack of verification.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) considered the rival submissions and noted that the AO had added the difference between the service tax outstanding and the amount already added in the earlier year.

Jignesh Naresh Jariwalavs Deputy Director of Income-tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1662

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Mumbai Bench, has held that once a taxpayer exercises the option under Section 89A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by furnishing Form 10EE, there is no requirement to furnish the form afresh in subsequent years.

The bench of Narendra Kumar Billaiya and Anikesh Banerjee, after examining the rules, agreed with the assessee. It observed that Form 10EE is only a procedural requirement, and once exercised, the option continues for subsequent years unless the assessee becomes a non-resident, in which case special rules apply.

Pavan Gopal Chotiya vsITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1663

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, held that an assessee is entitled to claim only 50% deduction of House Rent Allowance (HRA) where the rent agreement stands jointly in the names of the assessee and his brother, particularly when the assessee fails to substantiate having borne the entire rent payment by producing supporting evidence such as Form 16.

Accountant Member Dr. Manish Borad partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by sustaining the disallowance of ₹66,516 towards HRA, restricting the deduction to 50% on account of the joint rent agreement with his brother.

Lova Impex PrivateLimited vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1664

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad recently held that income tax assessments wrongly made under an old ‘Firm’ Permanent Account Number (PAN) owned by an assessee instead of their new and actual ‘Company’ PAN was required to be reassessed.

The Bench consisting of Vice President, Vijay Pal Rao and Accountant Member, Manjunatha G, directed the AO to verify whether transactions reported under the old PAN are reflected in the company’s official accounts under the new PAN, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Schwab Emerging MarketsEquity ETF vs DCIT (International Taxation) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1665

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, has held that short-term capitalloss incurred on transactions where Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid can be set off against short-term capital gains from transactions where STT was not paid.

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Sandeep Singh Karhail and Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav, observed that Section 70(2) of the Act merely refers to “similar computation” of income and does not carve out any distinction between STT-paid and non-STT transactions. It was noted that the appellant’s method of set-off was in line with established judicial precedents, holding that the AO’s restrictive interpretation was unsustainable.