ITAT Weekly Round-up

This weekly round-up encapsulates the key stories related to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

(ITAT) reported at Taxscan, from May 3, 2026 to May 9, 2026.

CIT(A) Fails to Adjudicate Matter on Merits: ITAT Condones Delay of 2659 Days and Remands for Fresh Adjudication on Deduction u/s 80P

Shirol Panchayat Samitti Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha MaryaditShirol 1 Near Panchayat Samiti Shirol vs Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 470

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench condoned the delay of 2659 days in filing the appeal and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication holding that the appellant should not be denied adjudication on merits due to non-deliberate delay.

The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Income Tax Rule 46A(3) must be Complied by CIT(A) while Admitting Additional Evidence like C-Forms: ITAT

The Income Tax Officer vs Durga Saw Mill, Dantewada Awara Bhata,Dantewada

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 471

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled that compliance with Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, is strictly mandatory when an appellate authority admits additional evidence.

The bench of Partha Sarathy Chaudhury found relevance in the Revenue’s arguments. Admitting the importance of C-Forms as evidence which influences the case's final outcome, it noted that the CIT(A) had bypassed a procedural requirement under Rule 46A(3).

No Independent Enquiry by AO on alleged Bogus Purchase: ITAT brings down Addition From Rs.17.3L to Rs. 2.1L

DCIT vs Sudesna Arunkumar Dana

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 472

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has restricted an addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases from ₹17.31 lakh to just ₹2.16 lakh. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the Assessing Officer's addition was based entirely on borrowed information from the Investigation Wing without any independent verification.

The Tribunal found no defect in the CIT(A)'s reasoning, upholding the restricted disallowance of ₹2.16 lakh. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was entirely dismissed, bringing the matter to a close in favor of the taxpayer.

₹13 Lakh Cash Used for Credit Card Dues Triggers Income Tax Scrutiny: ITAT Partly Accepts Family Gift Explanation

Shrenik Manish Mehta vs ITO

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 473

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai dealt with a case where around Rs. 13 lakh cash was used for paying credit card dues which led to income tax scrutiny. After checking the explanation that this money was received as gifts from family members, the tribunal partly accepted the explanation and gave partial relief to the assessee.

The tribunal gave relief of Rs. 9,25,000 and kept addition of Rs. 4,70,000. So, the appeal was partly allowed.

Cash Deposits in Bank Account Cannot Be Treated as Undisclosed Income Without Proper Consideration: ITAT Sets Aside ₹81.14 Lakh Addition

Radhakrishna Forex Private Limited vs I.T.O., Ward-11(1),Kolkata

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 474

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench has held that cash deposits in a bank account cannot be summarily treated as undisclosed income without proper adjudication of the assessee’s explanation and supporting records.

The Bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) set aside the addition of ₹81.14 lakh made under Section 69A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh disposal.

Family Agricultural Income and Earlier Cash Withdrawals not to be Added u/s 69A when Source Proved: ITAT Grants ₹28.71 Lakh Relief

Rajeshkumar Lakhubhai Dangar vs The ITO, IT Office, wd-2(1)(1)

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 475

The Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT) granted substantial relief holding that cash deposits in a bank account cannot be treated entirely as unexplained where the assessee has placed credible material on record to substantiate the source. The Tribunal deleted ₹28.71 lakh out of the total addition of ₹31.90 lakh, sustaining only 10% on an ad-hoc basis.

The ITAT restricted the addition to 10% of the cash deposits (₹3.19 lakh) and directed deletion of the balance ₹28.71 lakh, partly allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee.

Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses Incurred for Business Meet with Dealers and Customers without Adverse Findings: ITAT Deletes ₹1.13 Cr Addition

The ACIT vs Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd.

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 476

The Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, has held that business promotion expenses incurred for organizing a business meet for dealers, agents and customers cannot be disallowed without identifying specific defects.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.

Income Tax Notice Sent to Non-Operative Email Despite Updated ID, Ex parte Order Rejects S. 12AB Reg: ITAT Remands Matter

Shri Chandi Ram Educational Society vs Commissioner of Income(Exemptions)

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 477

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has set aside an ex parte order rejecting application for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G, noting that the notice was sent to a non-operative email and no effective opportunity was provided.

The Tribunal, comprising Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member), observed that the applications were rejected in ex parte proceedings and that the matter required re-examination.It restored the matter for fresh consideration after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and directed the assessee to respond to the notices and furnish relevant documents.

Mechanical Application of Rule 8D Invalid: ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decision on Section 14A Disallowance for Bajaj Resources Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT, Circle 4 (2) vs M/s. Bajaj Resources Pvt. Ltd.

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 478

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Agra Bench, has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 against Bajaj Resources Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred by mechanically applying Rule 8D without recording the mandatory objective satisfaction regarding the incurring of expenditure.

In view of this failure by the AO to record the necessary satisfaction, the ITAT held that the relief granted by the CIT(A) was justified. The Revenue’s appeal was partly allowed, with the challenge to the deletion of the disallowance being dismissed.

Validity of Section 148 Notices Upheld on Limitation: ITAT Allows KLM Steel Pipe’s Income Tax Appeal

KLM Steel Pipe Pvt. Ltd vs ITO

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 479

The IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has quashed the reassessment proceedings for KLM Steel Pipe Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, holding that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income-taxAct were barred by limitation, rendering the subsequent reassessment orders void ab initio.

The ITAT allowed the appeals, quashed the reassessment and penalty proceedings for both years, and held that the other grounds raised by the Assessee became academic in light of this decision.

Targeting Non-Existent Entity is Void Ab Initio: ITAT Sets Aside Assessment Order Against HCL Infinet

HCL Infosystems Ltd vs DCIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 480

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench (“F” Bench), allowed the appeal filed by M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd., setting aside the assessment order passed against its amalgamated subsidiary, M/s HCL Infinet Ltd., on the ground that the latter was a non-existent entity at the time of the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the AO had ignored the assessee's submission regarding the High Court order approving the amalgamation. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order passed against the non-existent entity was null and void. The appeal was allowed, and the assessment order dated 07.12.2018 was set aside. The other grounds of appeal regarding the merits of the additions were left open as academic.

Bitcoin Transactions Treated as Short-Term Capital Gain in Ex Parte Assessment: ITAT Condones 333-Day Delay and Remands Matter

Ajay Kumar vs Assessing Officer, Ward-2(1((1)

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 481

The Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, set aside an ex parte assessment in which Bitcoin transactions were treated as short-term capital gains, and restored the matter after condoning delay of 333 days in filing appeal.

The Tribunal, comprising Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member), noted that the delay was supported by material on record and was not intentional, and condoned the delay. It restored the matter for fresh consideration. The assessee was permitted to file a condonation application before the CIT(A), with a direction to provide an opportunity before deciding the appeal and to respond to notices and furnish relevant details.

Siphoning of Govt Funds via Bank A/c Misuse treated as Unexplained Income without Examining FIR: ITAT Remands Matter

Sanjay Chalia vs Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 482

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, set aside addition under Section 69A on deposits treated as unexplained income. The assessee had claimed misuse of his bank account by a relative for siphoning Government funds. However, the FIR was not examined.

It observed that if the bank account was merely used by another person for siphoning Government funds, the amount could not be treated as income of the assessee.The matter was restored for fresh examination after giving opportunity to the assessee.

Non-Deduction of TDS on LFC Under Binding High Court Orders Not Treated as Default: ITAT Grants Relief to State Bank of India

State Bank of India Bhavnagar Para Branch vs Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 483

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)Ahmedabad Bench has held that non-deduction of tax at source (TDS) on Leave Fare Concession (LFC) payments in compliance with binding interim directions of a High Court cannot render the assessee an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal comprisingSiddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) ruled in favour of the assessee directing deletion of the demand raised under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) holding that the obligation to deduct TDS stood overridden by judicial directions during the relevant period.

ITAT Remands ₹33 Lakh Agricultural Income Case for Fresh Verification, Imposes ₹2k Cost to PMNRF for Lack of Proof

Yohann Kekoo Sethna vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 484

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore SMC Bench, directed a fresh verification of a ₹33 lakh agricultural income claim for the Assessment Year 2021‑22. The Bench also imposed a cost of ₹2,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF).

The tribunal imposed a cost of ₹2,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF).

Addition Based Solely on Form 26AS Without Corresponding Bank Credit Unsustainable: ITAT Remands ₹78.60 Lakh Commission Addition

Bimal Dilip Samani vs ITO

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 485

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench has held that additions made solely on the basis of Form 26AS entries without verifying corresponding bank credits cannot be sustained. The Tribunal remanded the matter involving an addition of ₹78.60 lakh towards alleged commission income for fresh examination.

The Bench comprising Pawan Singh [Judicial Member] and Arun Khodpia, [Accountant Member] partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct proper verification of the TDS entries reflected in Form 26AS and ascertain whether corresponding income was actually received by the assessee. If no such credit is found the addition is liable to be deleted.

Operation Clean Money Revealed ₹12.4L Demonetisation Cash Deposit: ITAT Remands Income Tax Order over Improper Notice

Lokesh Mittal vs Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 486

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently remanded an income tax assessment order regarding demonetisation period cash deposit of ₹12.44 Lakhs revealed through ‘Operation Clean Money’. The Tribunal noted that the department had not provided the assessee a proper opportunity for hearing and adequate service of notice before the addition was confirmed.

The ITAT remitted the issue back to the AO for the limited purpose of hearing the assessee with regard to the addition of ₹8,16,880 sustained in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

Opportunity of Hearing Denied: ITAT Directs De Novo Hearing on Rs. 3.30 Crore Penalty on Matri Bhumi Agritech LLP

Matri Bhumi Agritech LLP vs ITO, Ward-24(2), Hooghly

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 487

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata ‘C’ Bench, has partly allowed the appeal filed by Matri Bhumi Agritech LLP and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo (fresh) hearing, observing that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to be heard and produce evidence to contest the penalty.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue to the JCIT/ACIT to reconsider the matter afresh, allow the filing of evidence, and pass a fresh order if required or delete the penalty if the assessee's claim is substantiated.

"Mere Reference to Misreporting" Insufficient for Levy of Penalty: ITAT Quashes Rs. 1.22cr Penalty for Lack of Reasoning

M/s. Indian Academy Education Trust vs The DCIT (Exemptions)

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 488

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), ‘A’ Bench, Bangalore, has allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order levied under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 1.22 Crore was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to specify which specific clause of Section 270A(9) (misreporting of income) was attracted, rendering the order manifestly arbitrary.

The ITAT held that the order of the penalty passed under section 270A(9) was not sustainable, reversed the orders of the lower authorities, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.

Income Tax Dept Cannot Disallow Weighted R&D Deduction Once DSIR Certifies Expenditure: ITAT Deletes Addition against Matrix Clothing Ltd

Matrix Clothing P. Ltd. vs ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 489

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench has held that the Income Tax Department cannot disallow weighted deduction on research and development (R&D) expenditure once such expenditure has been certified by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) while granting major relief to assessee by deleting additions including an estimated manufacturing expense disallowance of ₹23 crore.

The Bench found that the Revenue had merely extrapolated survey findings from a later year without establishing any abnormality in the assessee’s expense to turnover ratio. Holding such estimation unsustainable the Tribunal deleted the addition.

Advertisement Expenses cannot be Treated as International Transaction in absence of Proven AE Arrangement: ITAT Deletes ₹57.11 Cr TP Addition on Whirlpool India

Whirlpool of India Ltd vs ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 490

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench has held that Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by the assessee for its own business operations cannot be treated as an international transaction in the absence of any proven arrangement or understanding with its Associated Enterprise (AE) and consequently deleted the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹57.11 crore.

The Tribunal remanded the issues relating to deduction of foreign tax credit claims back to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also admitted an additional ground relating to warranty expenditure and restored the matter for fresh examination.

“Situs” of Assessing Officer Determines Territorial Jurisdiction: ITAT Delhi Rejects Hilton Agra’s Appeal

M/s. Double Tree by Hilton Hotel vs Additional Commissioner ofIncome Tax (TDS)

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 491

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently dismissed an appeal filed by a member-hotel of the Hilton group at Agra, holding that the Delhi Benches lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter since the assessee’s regular assessment jurisdiction was at Agra.

The Bench concluded that the Delhi Bench did not possess requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate Hilton’s matter and dismissed the appeal. However it was advised that, should the assessee opt to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate benches, the delay caused therein would stand condoned.

Delay During COVID-19 Exempt Period: ITAT Condones 30-Day Delay in Filing Income Tax Appeal Citing Supreme Court's Exemption Order

Child Welfare Society vs Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 492

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, has allowed setting aside the National Faceless Appeal Centre's (NFAC) order that rejected the assessee's appeal due to a 30-day delay.

The ITAT condoned the delay and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal de novo (afresh) after granting a sufficient opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT Quashes Section 153C Income Tax Assessments for Lack of Proper Satisfaction Recorded by Assessing Officer

Bhartiya International Ltd vs DCIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 493

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘F’, has allowed the appeals by quashing the assessments framed under Section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record a valid satisfaction note, a prerequisite for proceeding against a third party under Section 153C of the act.

Following judicial consistency and finding no exceptions in law or facts, the ITAT set aside the assessments for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, rendering all other grounds academic. All three appeals were allowed accordingly.

Excess Agricultural Income Declared in Return Due to Filing Error: ITAT accepts Correction and deletes ₹15.5L Addition u/s 69A

Chander Pal vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 494

The Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, deleted addition of ₹15.5 lakh made under Section 69A after accepting the assessee’s claim that excess agricultural income was wrongly declared in the return due to a filing error

The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Income Declared Under Income Declaration Scheme Cannot Be Taxed in Original Assessment Year Due to Non-Payment of Tax: ITAT Deletes ₹2.03 Cr Addition

M/S DAFFODILLS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. vs DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1),MEERUT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 495

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] Delhi Bench has deleted an addition of ₹2.03 crore made holding that income disclosed under the Income Declaration Scheme (IDS), 2016 could not be taxed in the original assessment year merely because the assessee failed to pay tax within the prescribed time.

Holding the reassessment and consequential addition to be unsustainable in law the Tribunal deleted the ₹2.03 crore addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Defence Contract Confidentiality Clause Cannot Be Basis for Adverse TP Inference: ITAT Deletes ₹38.20 Cr Addition

Boeing India Defense Private Limited vs DCIT, Circle 4 (2), NewDelhi

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 496

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench deleted a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹38.20 crore made against Boeing India Defense Private Limited, holding that the non-disclosure of defence contracts due to confidentiality obligations could not be used to draw an adverse inference against the assessee.

The bench comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad and S. Rifaur Rahman held that the TPO proceeded on an incorrect assumption that Boeing India itself rendered the technical services as a result directed the Assessing Officer and TPO to accept the benchmarking adopted by the assessee and deleted the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹38.20 crore made in relation to technical and training service fees paid by the assessee to Boeing Aerospace Operations (BAO).

TPO Wrongly Recharacterised Boeing India as Full-Risk Service Provider Despite AE Assuming Entire Contractual Risks: ITAT

Boeing India Defense Private Limited vs DCIT, Circle 4 (2), NewDelhi

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 496

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) Delhi Bench held that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had wrongly recharacterised Boeing India Defense Private Limited as a full-risk service provider despite the Associated Enterprise (AE) assuming the entire contractual and operational risks relating to defence support services rendered to the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The Tribunal held that there was no basis for re-characterization and directed the revenue department to accept the benchmarking made by the assessee.

ITAT Reduces Estimated Profit Rate from 8% to 5%; Upholds 8% Profit Estimation Excessive for Infrastructure Sub-Contractor Operating in Remote Areas

ENVISTA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED vs ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 497

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench has reduced the estimated profit rate of an infrastructure contractor from 8% to 5%, holding that the Assessing Officer’s estimation was excessive considering the assessee’s status as a sub-contractor operating in remote and difficult terrains.

The Tribunal estimated the profit at 5% of turnover and partly allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee.

Registered Sale Value and Stamp Duty Valuation Alone Cannot Prove Unaccounted Cash Payment in Property Purchase: ITAT Deletes ₹1 Crore Addition

Mayuri Hitendra Shah vs Assessing Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 498

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] Mumbai Bench has held that the registered sale value of a property and stamp duty valuation by themselves cannot be treated as conclusive proof of unaccounted cash payment in a property transaction. The Tribunal set aside the addition of ₹1 crore made against the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses.

The Bench set aside the appellate order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment after granting cross-examination and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Denial of Section 54F Exemption and Property Value Enhancement Cannot Be Sustained Without Considering Evidence: ITAT Sets Aside ₹13.06 Lakh Addition

Nirmal Kishore Jain vs ddl./Joint/ Dy. /Asstt. Commissioner ofIncome Tax

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 499

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench held that denial of exemption under Section 54F of the Income TaxAct, 1961 and enhancement of property valuation cannot be sustained where the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee was not properly examined by the lower authorities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Holding that the assessee deserved an effective opportunity of hearing the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after considering all submissions and evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) Provisions Inapplicable Once Concessional Tax Regime Option Exercised: ITAT Deletes ₹36.67 Cr Addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, Ward 27(1) vs WESTERN DEVELOPERS PRIVATELIMITED

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 500

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench has held that the provisions relating to Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable once an assessee opts for the concessional tax regime. The Tribunal accordingly upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹36.67 crore made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC).

The Tribunal held that MAT provisions were inapplicable in the present case and dismissed the Department’s appeal.

Common Area Maintenance Recoverable from Tenants Cannot Be Reallocated to House Property Income: ITAT Sets Aside ₹17.67 Cr Addition

DCIT-CC-8(4) vs Offbeat Developers Private Limited

CITATION : 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1756

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench has upheld the deletion of a disallowance of ₹17.67 crore made by the Assessing Officer (AO) holding that common area maintenance (CAM) expenses recoverable from tenants cannot be reallocated to income assessed under the head ‘Income from House Property’.

The Bench comprising Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) dismissed the Revenue department appeals for Assessment Years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2021-22 and affirmed the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

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