ITAT Weekly Round-up

This weekly round-up analytically summarises the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reported at Taxscan during the previous week, from 24th August 2025 to 30th August 2025.

Agreement Value at Booking Exceeded Stamp Duty Value: ITAT Deletes ₹38.69L Addition on Sale of 12 Flats as Section 43CA Not Applicable

Bansal Land Developers vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1542

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted an addition of ₹38,69,867 made under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the agreement value at the time of booking exceeded the stamp duty value and part of the consideration had been received through cheques, making section 43CA inapplicable.

The Bench comprising R.K.Panda (Vice President) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) observed that the agreement value at the time of booking was higher than the stamp duty value and part consideration had been received through banking channels, satisfying the statutory conditions. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the deletion of the ₹38,69,867 addition.

ITAT fixes FMV of Land at ₹60/sq.m for Capital Gain Calculation, directs AO to Verify Deduction u/s 54

Vasuben Natwerlal Patel vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1543

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has partly allowed the appeal by fixing the fair market value (FMV) of land at ₹60 per sq.m as on 01.04.1981 for capital gain computation and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify and allow deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 after the examination of facts.

The Bench comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) directed the AO to adopt ₹60 per sq.m as the FMV as on 01.04.1981. The AO was further instructed to verify the assessee’s claim of deduction under section 54 and allow it if the statutory conditions were satisfied, after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.

SanDisk India not a Taxable DAPE of Western Digital: ITAT Rejects Survey Based Profit Attribution of ₹194.44 Cr under India-US DTAA

Western Digital Technologies Incvs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1544

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that SanDisk India is not a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of Western Digital Technologies Inc. under Article 5 of the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), and rejected the attribution of ₹194,44,62,000 made based on a survey.

The Bench comprising Soundararajan K(Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) observed that the material relied upon by the AO and DRP did not demonstrate that SanDisk India was habitually concluding contracts or securing orders for the assessee but, It was noted that SanDisk India was carrying on software development and design support services, and its transactions were already examined and accepted under transfer pricing provisions.

Assessment set aside as AO Failed to Enquire into ₹90.89L Payments: ITAT upholds Revision u/s 263, Making Order Erroneous and Prejudicial to Revenue

Grant Medical Foundation vs CITExemption CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1545

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to enquire into payments of ₹90.89 lakh, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

The Bench comprising R.K. Panda (Vice President) and Astha Chandra (Judicial Member) held that failure to investigate rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

Failure to consider Benefit of working capital adjustment while computing ALP: ITAT Directs re adjudication against Schneider Electric India Pvt ltd

Schneider Electric India PrivateLimited vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1546

The New Delhi bench of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the re adjudication against the case of Schneider Electric India Private Limited regarding the allegation of failure to consider the benefit of working capital adjustments while computing the ALP.

The two member bench of Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member considered it expedient to restore all the issues placed before the Tribunal back to the file of the TPO/AO for fresh determination of such issues in the light of submissions made and various claims asserted before the Tribunal. It shall be open to the assessee to make such submissions and adduce such evidences as may be considered expedient. The TPO/DRP/AO shall pass fresh order in accordance with law by way of a speaking order”.

Cash Deposits in Joint Account Declared in Wife’s ITR: ITAT Remits Matter as Individual Fails to Explain Source of Cash Deposits

Mahesh Padmnabhrao Kashikar vsITO, Ward-1, Nanded CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1547

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remitted a matter involving cash deposits of ₹14,89,425 in a joint bank account declared in the wife’s income-tax return (ITR) after the individual failed to explain the source of funds.

The two member bench comprising Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad (Accountant Member) rejected this contention, stating that the assessee could not shift the entire responsibility onto the authorities without complying with the notices.

Advance Receivables Qualify as Application of Income u/s 11(2): ITAT directs AO to accept Claim

Lala Gauri Mal Butail Trust VSITO-Exemptions Ward CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1548

The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to accept the claim that advance receivables qualify as an application of income under Section 11(2) of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) noted that the AO had never disputed the evidence regarding the increase in advance receivables claimed towards the application of income.

Taxpreparer files ITR-U showing Higher Income without Taxpayer’s Knowledge as OTP Shared: ITAT Remands for Verification

Nazneen Parvez Memon vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1549

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a matter for verification where a tax preparer filed an updated Income Tax Returns (ITR-U) showing higher income without the taxpayer’s knowledge.

A single member bench comprising Manish Borad (Accountant Member) heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It noted that the assessee had filed the original return declaring an income of Rs. 5,15,000, paid self-assessment tax, and the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act.

Public Listed Companies need not to Prove Source of Source of Share Capital u/s 68: ITAT

Vardhman Polytex Ltd vs DCITCentral Circle -1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1550

The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that public listed companies are not required to prove the source of the source of share capital under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) after reviewing the facts, held that the impugned addition was not justified.

ITAT Deletes Disallowance made by AO without undertaking Independent Inquiry u/s 133(6) of Income Tax Act

Ajitsinh Takhatsinh Baraiya vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1551

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the disallowance of ₹27,92,370/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) without undertaking an independent inquiry under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) reviewed the submissions of both parties and noted that the appellant-assessee claimed that M/s Harsha Engineers Ltd. had deducted ₹27,92,370/- from gross billings of ₹1,70,00,165/- towards PF, ESIC, canteen expenses, bus fare, and deficiency in services, while only ₹1,27,16,61/- was received.

ITAT Deletes Penalty of ₹96,010 on Alleged Bogus Brick Payment after Department Confirms No Pending Supplies

M/S RPK Bricks Manufactures vsITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1552

The Amritsar Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT )allows the appeal of the assessee and deletes the penalty of ₹96,010 on an alleged bogus brick payment after the department confirms no pending supplies.

The two member bench comprising Udayan Das Gupta (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) noted that the assessee had submitted certificates from the concerned department confirming that no bricks were pending against the payments made in FY 1981-82. The assessee also provided ledger extracts from 01-04-1981 to 31-03-1987, showing that the supplies were made in subsequent years.

Charitable Institution Free to use Accumulated Income up to 5 years without Prior Exhaustion of Current Year’s Income: ITAT

The Income Tax Officer vsUttarPradesh Police and Armed Forces Sahayata Sansthan CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1553

The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently ruled that the charitable institution is free to use the accumulated income up to 5years without prior exhaustion of the current year’s income.

The bench of Nikhil Choudhary (AM) and Sudhanshu Srivatsava (JM), therefore, held that a charitable institution has complete freedom to utilize its accumulated income within the permitted five-year window, irrespective of whether the current year’s income has been spent or not.

Individual Fails to Prove Cash Deposits as Land Sale Proceeds by Father: ITAT remits Matter back on Interest of Justice

Rahul Kumar vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1554

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remitted the matter of addition on cash deposits to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] for verifying the genuineness of the transactions.

Accordingly, the bench of Mahavir Singh (VP) remitted the case back to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the matter afresh, after affording the assessee an opportunity to produce relevant documents and evidence to substantiate the claim of land sale proceeds.

₹26 Lakh Shortfall in Permitted TDS: ITAT Directs AO to Allow Full Claim to Schindler India after Verifying Form 26AS

Schindler India Private Limitedvs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1555

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench recently directed an Assessing Officer (AO) to allow elevator and escalator manufacturing giant Schindler India Private Limited (Schindler) to claim the entire Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amount of ₹26,36,208 following due verification of Form 26AS.

After hearing submissions and examining the relevant records, the two-member Bench of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal constituted by Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member and Sandeep Singh Karhail, Judicial Member paid heed to Schindler India’s claim of additional TDS than was permitted.

Pamphlets and Photos of Charity Camps Insufficient to Establish Charity: ITAT Denies S.80G Approval, Holds Trust’s Hospital Runs Commercially

Smt. Vimal Chawla CharitableTrust vs CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1556

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chandigarh Bench, has dismissed the appeal of an assessee trust seeking approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the hospital run by the trust functions on a commercial basis rather than as a charitable institution.

The bench of Laliet Kumar (JM) and Manoj Kumar Agarwal (AM) said that while the assessee relied on printed pamphlets and photographs of free health check-up camps, there was no supporting evidence such as patient records, data on the number of beneficiaries, or details of free treatment provided. Such documents, the Tribunal held, “hardly inspire confidence” to establish the existence of genuine charitable activities.

Wrong Reporting of PF/ESI Deposit Dates by Tax Auditor Causes Excess Disallowance: ITAT Directs AO to Verify and Restrict Only to Late Payments

Sunrise Facilitators Pvt. Ltd.vs DCIT Circle CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1557

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), in a matter of wrong reporting of PF/ESI employees’ contribution deposit dates by the tax auditor had resulted in a higher disallowance, the AO was directed to verify records.

The bench of Laliet Kumar (JM) and Manoj Kumar Agarwal (AM) noted that the issue of law stood settled against the assessee by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022), which clarified the distinction between employer’s contribution and employees’ contribution.

ITAT upholds Upward Adjustment of Management Support Services on TVS

Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax vs M/s.TVS Motor Company Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1558

In a recent order, the Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue on the issue of upward adjustment of Rs.17,69,67,000/- on account of management support services. It was observed that the expenses have been governed by a management services agreement dated 29.03.1997 and consequently the assessee has been paying amounts to its holding company SCL.

A two member bench of Shri Aby T Varkey, Judicial Member and Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of upward adjustments and dismiss all the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.

Payments to foreign agents exempt from TDS as income not taxable in India: ITAT

Manisha Kiran Temkar vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1559

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal, ruling that payments made to foreign agents for services rendered entirely outside India were not taxable in India and no Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) was required.

The two member bench comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) considered the submissions of both parties and examined the records. It noted that the appellant’s business model was not in dispute.

ITAT allows LTCG Exemption u/s 54 on Sale of Old Flat as Possession of New Flat falls Within Prescribed Period

Payal Kishore Kulchandani vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1560

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the claim of Long Term Capital Gains ( LTCG )exemption under section 54 of Income Tax Act,1961 on the sale of an old flat, as the possession of the new flat was obtained within the prescribed period.

The two member bench comprising Amit Shukal (Judicial Member) and Reenu Jauhri (Accountant Member) considered the submissions of both parties and the judicial decisions cited by the assessee counsel.

Payments for Multiple Bills Below Rs. 20,000 Each Do Not Attract S. 40A(3) Disallowance: ITAT

Harishkumar Mathuradas Barai vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1561

The Rajkot Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that payments for multiple bills, each below Rs. 20,000, do not attract disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two member bench comprising Dinesh Mohan Sinha (Judicial Member) and Dr.Arjun Lal Saini (Accountant Member) observed that there was no reason to take a view different from that of the Co-ordinate Bench in the group case of Parsottam Madhavji Bhanusali vs. ITO.

Addition of Rs. 6.75 Lakh Gifts from Sister and Father-in-Law by AO: ITAT Deletes Addition, Accepts Proof of Receipt

Shri Avtar Singh Gill vs DCITCircle CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1562

The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs. 6.75 lakh gifts from the sister and father-in-law made by the Assessing Officer (AO ), accepting the proof of receipt presented by the assessee.

The two member bench comprising Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had adequately established the receipt of gifts before the lower authorities.

Only 10 Cr Disallowed out of Rs. 35cr Depreciation Allowance Claimed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd u/s 32 : ITAT restores for Reconsideration

M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs The ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1563

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the claim of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the disallowance of 10 Crore out of the total depreciation allowance claimed. The tribunal restored the matter for reconsideration.

The two-member bench of Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member and M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member restored the Ground No. 2 and 2.1 raised by the assessee to the file of AO for consideration in the light of decision taken in earlier years.

AO Relies on Erroneous Software Data for Addition, Ignored Submissions on OPD/IPD Classification: ITAT directs Fresh Adjudication

M/s Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd vsDCIT-Central Circle -1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1564

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh bench has remanded a case involving additions made on account of alleged undisclosed hospital receipts, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the impounded data and undertake a fresh assessment.

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal held that the entire addition was based on data generated from the hospital’s software, which prima facie did not provide correct information.

Snack Vendor’s Cash Deposits verified via Books and Sale Records: ITAT Deletes Addition, Orders Re-computation

Ms. Reena vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1565

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh “B” Bench has deleted an addition relating to unexplained cash deposits made by a snack vendor, holding that the deposits were duly supported by books of account and property sale records, and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-compute the income after verification.

The Bench comprising of Judicial Member Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal observed that the assessee had placed sufficient evidence on record to demonstrate the availability of funds for the impugned deposits.

Real Estate Firm’s EDC Payments to HUDA is of Contractual Nature, Liable to TDS u/194(c): ITAT

DCIT vs M/s Ireo Grace RealtechPrivate Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1566

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench allowed the Revenue’s appeals in a case concerning non-deduction of tax at source on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra held that the issue was already settled by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd.

ITAT Applies Test of Human Probabilities, Rejects ₹84.8 Lakh Penny Stock LTCG Claim as ‘Unnatural and Pre-Arranged’

Smt. Chitra Avdhesh Mehta vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1567

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of Rs. 84,79,100 after rejecting the assessee’s claim of long-term capital gains (LTCG) on penny stock transactions, holding that the gains were unnatural and pre-arranged.

The two-member bench comprising Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Shri Om Prakash Kant (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee was not a regular investor and had entered into such transactions only to claim exempt LTCG.

Income Tax Assessment against Company Dissolved and Struck Off u/s 560(5) of Companies Act Held Invalid: ITAT

Dazzle Developers P. Ltd. vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1568

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that an income tax assessment made against a company dissolved and struck off under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act,2013 was invalid.

A single member bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) heard both sides and examined the orders of the authorities below. The assessee had challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment.

Seven Adjacent Residential Units on Same Floor Constitute ‘One Residential House’ u/s 54 of Income Tax Act: ITAT

Saroj Rani vs I.T.O CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1569

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that seven adjacent residential units on the same floor in a complex constitute “one residential house” under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member) examined the submissions and reviewed the material on record. The appeal involved the partial denial of deduction under Section 54 of the Act on long-term capital gains arising from the sale of a residential house in Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, for ₹2,70,60,000.

Section 269SS intended to curb Black Money, does not extend to Genuine Final Consideration: ITAT quashes ₹20 Lakh Penalty

Bhaskar Thattaruthodiyil Nair vsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1570

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, has set aside a penalty of ₹20 lakh levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a property transaction case, ruling that cash received as final consideration at the time of registration does not violate Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act.

The bench, comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Amarjit Singh, found merit in the assessee’s argument. Referring to coordinate bench rulings including Ramkumar Reddy Satty v. ACIT (2024) and R. Dhinagharan (HUF) (2023), the Tribunal reiterated that Section 269SS is intended to curb the circulation of black money through cash advances in property deals. It does not extend to genuine final consideration paid in cash at the time of registration in front of the Sub-Registrar.

Addition on Excess Cane Price and Concessional Sugar Sale Remands for want of Evidence: ITAT directs Fresh Adjudication

Shri Ganesh Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1571

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, remanded appeals, considering (i) excess sugarcane price paid to members and (ii) sale of sugar at concessional rates to members by a cooperative sugar factory on want of evidence.

The Bench comprising R.K. Panda Vice President and Astha Chandra Judicial Member, observed that in view of the statutory amendment under Section 155(19), directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee’s documentary evidence, including cane payment records, government notifications, and cooperative resolutions, and to compute any disallowance afresh with reference to levy price instead of market price.

Documentary Evidence Clears Loan Trail: ITAT Quashes ₹1.63 Crore Addition u/s. 68, Appeal Allowed

Ravi Kumar vs Dy. Commissionerof Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1572

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench deleted an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the impugned sum received from a private company was a repayment of earlier deposit and not an unexplained cash credit.

The Bench comprising Judicial Member Challa Nagendra Prasad and Accountant Member Avdhesh Kumar Mishra held that the assessee had satisfactorily demonstrated the source of the impugned funds.

Manufacturer’s 80IC Deduction Allowed: ITAT Declares Audit Report Filing Directory, allows Assessee’s Appeal

Bhagwan Precision vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1573

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench allowed an appeal against denial of deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declaring that filing of an audit report along with the return is directory in nature, not mandatory, provided the report is furnished before completion of assessment.

The Bench comprising of Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member S. Rifaur Rahman observed that the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80IC in the original return filed under Section 139(1).

Interest/Dividend Income received from co-operative bank is deemed to have received from cooperative society: ITAT Allows Deduction u/s 80 P to TN Special Police

Tamilnadu Special PoliceEmployees Cooperative vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1575

In a recent Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that interest/dividend Income received from co-operative bank is deemed to have received from cooperative society and allowed deduction under section 80 P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two member Shri George George K, Vice President and Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member held that interest/dividend income received from co-operative bank is deemed to have been received from cooperative society since it has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.

Failure to consider Benefit of working capital adjustment while computing ALP: ITAT Directs re adjudication against Schneider Electric India Pvt ltd

Schneider Electric India PrivateLimited vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1576

The New Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) directed the re adjudication against the case of Schneider Electric India Private Limited regarding the allegation of failure to consider the benefit of working capital adjustments while computing the ALP.

The two member bench of Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member considered it expedient to restore all the issues placed before the Tribunal back to the file of the TPO/AO for fresh determination of such issues in the light of submissions made and various claims asserted before the Tribunal. It shall be open to the assessee to make such submissions and adduce such evidences as may be considered expedient. The TPO/DRP/AO shall pass fresh order in accordance with law by way of a speaking order”.

“Own” in S.54F of Income Tax Act means Absolute Ownership: ITAT Clarifies Jointly-Owned Properties Not a Bar to Exemption

DCIT vs Ajay Goel CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1577

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently deliberated an appeal relating to the applicability of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the correctness of the indexed cost of acquisition claimed on certain share transactions.

The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently deliberated an appeal relating to the applicability of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the correctness of the indexed cost of acquisition claimed on certain share transactions.

Section 115BBE of Income Tax Act Applies on Transactions On or After 01.04.2017 Only: ITAT

DCIT vs Resoursys Telecom CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1578

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, held that the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are applicable only to transactions made on or after 01 April 2017. Accordingly, in appeals concerning additions made on account of cash deposits treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, the Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 115BBE and ruled that it could not be invoked retrospectively for earlier assessment years.

The bench comprising Judicial Member Satbeer Singh Godara and Accountant Member Naveen Chandra observed that neither the Revenue nor the assessees could establish their case conclusively. While the Revenue could not dismiss the business explanation, the assessees failed to reconcile the cash deposits with specificity before the Assessing Officer.

Income Tax Notices sent to Old E-mail Address, Made Ex-parte Addition u/s 69A: ITAT Restores Matter to AO

Vikram Tatyaba Chatur vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1579

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, has set aside an assessment order sustaining additions under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal relied on evidence relating to email communication, which revealed that notices were sent to an old email address of the assessee, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to present his case.

The Tribunal bench comprising R. K. Panda Vice President and Astha Chandra Judicial Member held that the assessee had been denied an adequate opportunity to explain the nature and source of the deposits due to notices being served at the incorrect email address. The matter was restored before the AO with directions to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case.

Expenses on Interiors and Utility Connections for Residential Property Qualify as Cost of Acquisition u/s 54: ITAT

Venkatraman JayashreePriyadharshini vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1580

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, has ruled that expenditure incurred on interior works and essential utility connections can be treated as part of the cost of acquisition of a new residential property and thereby qualify for exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench comprising S.S. Viswanethra Ravi Judicial Member and Amitabh Shukla Accountant Member, noted that the appellant had produced a valuation report dated March 16, 2020, from VJPS Developer. The report confirmed the expenditure on interior works and utility connections.

Stock Exchange and Demat Records Prove Share Transactions: ITAT deletes Additions u/s 153A

Vikram Biharisaran Khandelwal vsDCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1581

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai examined whether additions towards disallowance of interest expenditure, capital gains, and estimated commission expenses made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were sustainable in light of documentary evidence furnished by the assessee.

The Bench comprising B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member and Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member on the issue of interest expenditure, applied the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), holding that own funds are presumed to be used first for making interest-free advances.

Reassessment against Struck-Off Company Void-Ab-Initio: ITAT Relies on Zauba Corp and MCA Records Confirming Strike-Off Status

Vinpack Agro Pvt. Ltd vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1582

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Ahmedabad ruled that the reassessment against struck-off company is void-ab-initio. The tribunal confirmed the strike off of the company from Zauba Corp and MCA records.

The Bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member, held that the assessment proceedings were unsustainable in law. It observed that Zauba Corp records clearly indicated the company’s struck-off status as of 2012, which was further corroborated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ order in 2013.

Revenue Ignores Registry’s Defect Memo and Reminders sent by Registry: ITAT dismisses Revenue’s Appeal

Addl. C.I.T vs Shri Vijay Pandey CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1583

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Lucknow, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal relating to penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after noting that the Registry had issued a defect memo and repeated reminders which remained unaddressed. The Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal once the defects are cured.

The Bench comprising Kul Bharat Vice President and Anadee Nath Misshra Accountant Member noted that the appeal filed by the Revenue continued to suffer from defects despite several reminders and sufficient opportunities. Observing that the requirement of filing a revised Form 36 was not complied with, the Bench held that the defective appeal could not be entertained.

Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) does Not Apply to Land Purchase Made Prior to 1st April 2014: ITAT deletes Addition

Smt. Vimla Tripathi vs TheIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1584

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Lucknow bench, deleted the addition made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the provision is prospective and applies only to transactions on or after 1 April 2014. Since the assessee’s agricultural land was purchased prior to this date, the Tribunal held that the addition was without legal basis.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) were not applicable as the purchase was completed before 1 April 2014. It was further observed that the registered sale deed and bank statements of the assessee, establish that consideration had indeed been paid for the land purchase, thereby disproving the Revenue’s claim that the transaction was without consideration.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates