ITAT Weekly Round Up [August 10th - August 16th]

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 10th August 2025 to 16th August 2025.

SBN Deposits Not Unexplained Income: ITAT Deletes ₹ 17.16 Lakh Addition u/s 69A, Holds Demonetization Deposits Valid Until 31.12.2016

Sri Shivakumara Swamy CreditCoop Society Limited vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1448

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that deposits of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) made during the demonetisation period cannot be treated as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income-taxAct, 1961, and deleted the addition of ₹17,16,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO).

The Tribunal Bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) noted that the government notification did not prohibit deposit of SBNs during the window period and, in fact, expressly allowed such deposits up to 30 December 2016.

Wedding Gifts Not Taxable under Income Tax: ITAT deletes ₹10 Lakh Cash Deposit Addition

Shruthi Kishore vs The IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1451

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), while deleting an addition of ₹10L made as unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, held that wedding gifts are customary in Indian culture and are exempted from tax.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) observed that in Indian society, marriage is a socio-cultural event where it is customary to receive gifts, including cash, from relatives and friends.

Free Equipment from Group Companies Taxable as Perquisite u/s 28(iv): ITAT Upholds PCIT's Revision u/s 263, Directs AO to Verify Returnable Basis

LSI India Research &Development Pvt. Ltd vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax  CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1452

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the free of cost equipment of ₹42.89 crore received from group companies was potentially taxable as a perquisite under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It upheld the order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) held that there was no infirmity in the PCIT’s direction under section 263. It also observed that if the equipment was indeed on a returnable basis, the AO should decide the matter afresh in the light of the Sony India Software Center ruling.

Non-Intimation by Tax Practitioner Causes Appeal Delay: ITAT Condones 1249-Day Delay, Quashes Revision u/s 263 Initiated on AO's Proposal

Bandigadi ChandrappashettyRajashekara vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1453

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has granted relief to a taxpayer by condoning a delay of 1,249 days in filing appeals for AY 2015-16, noting that part of the delay fell within the COVID-19 period covered by the Supreme Court’s blanket extension of limitation, while attributing 499 days of the delay to the tax practitioner’s failure to inform the appellant.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) noted that the PCIT had initiated proceedings under section 263 based on a proposal from the Assessing Officer (AO), rather than a suo motu examination of the assessment records, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite under section 263.

Surcharge on Private Discretionary Trust Income: ITAT Applies 15% Rate as Income Does Not Exceed ₹2 Crores

Anil Gala Navneet Trust NavneetBhavan vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1454

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) applied a 15% surcharge on the income of a private discretionary trust, as the total income did not exceed ₹2 crores.

The two-member bench comprising Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) observed that the issue was already settled by the Special Bench, Mumbai, in Aradhya Jain Trust vs. ITO dated 09.04.2025.

Legal Heir Cannot Be Expected to Explain Unexplained Bank Credits of Deceased: ITAT notes AO fails to Verify Sources, Deletes Penalty

Bhumika Navin Patel vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1455

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961, holding that a legal heir cannot be expected to explain unexplained bank credits of a deceased person when the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to verify the sources.

The two member bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) considered the rival submissions and reviewed the case records. It found that most of the deposits in the bank account of the late Navinbhai Patel were bank transfers, with some small cash deposits.

Bonafide Error in Claiming 15% Depreciation Instead of 7.5%: ITAT finds Assessee Eligible for Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia)

Heena Parthiv Thakkar vs ADIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1456

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that a bonafide error in claiming 15% depreciation instead of the eligible 7.5% on plant and machinery used for less than 180 days did not disqualify the assessee from claiming additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of Income Tax Act,1961 and accordingly allowed the claim.

The two member bench comprising Dr.B.R.R. Kumar (Vice-President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) examined the submissions and records. It noted that the assessee had wrongly claimed 15% depreciation on new plant and machinery used for less than 180 days, instead of the allowable 7.5%, and had admitted the mistake as bonafide. As there was no ineligibility, the appellate tribunal allowed the additional depreciation.

Non-issuance and Non-service of Notice u/s 143(2) Renders Reassessment Order Null and Void: ITAT

Pravinbhai Jethabhai Patel vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1457

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that non-issuance and non-service of notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act,1961, renders reassessment order null and void.

The two member bench comprising Dr.B.R.R Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) heard both sides and reviewed the records. It was found that the Department did not prove that the notice under section 143(2) dated 11.07.2018 was served to the assessee. The notice was not found on the ITBA or e-filing portal, and the appellant’s requests for it were ignored.

Revenue Concerns about Genuineness of Documents: ITAT remands Disallowance of Outward Expenses in Transport Business

Darbhanga vs M/s TrimurtiConcern Pvt   CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1458

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) a dispute concerning the disallowance of “outward expenses” in a transport business, after the Revenue flagged doubts over the genuineness of vouchers and records.

Weighing rival submissions, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)’s order was broadly well‑reasoned, having recognised transaction‑level realities and documentation constraints typical to the transport trade. Yet, it acknowledged the Revenue’s apprehensions regarding the genuineness of documents.

S. 14A Disallowance Not Applicable Without Exempt Income: ITAT quashes Revision Order

Trustworthy Security ServicesPrivate Limited vs PCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1459

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, has quashed a revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that the facts did not warrant the interference of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), as the issue of Section 14A disallowance had already been examined by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment.

It was observed by the Two-Member Tribunal Bench of Accountant Member Renu Jauhri and Judicial Member Madhumita Roy that, “Considering the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, we find that in the instant case before us when specific queries were raised by the AO, reply was duly filed by the assessee along with details as asked for which has been duly considered by the Ld. AO in its proper perspective and the return filed by the assessee was then accepted, taking into consideration of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PVIT Vs. Indian Farmers & Fertilizers Co-operative Ltd.”

Tax on Cash Deposits during Demonetization already filed under Other Sources: ITAT directs AO to Delete Addition u/s 115BBE

Usha Patodia vs ITO  CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1460

In a recent ruling, the Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the addition made under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act on cash deposits that the assessee had already declared as income under “Other Sources” in the tax return.

It was further noted by the bench of Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) that, “In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally wrong as the same income cannot be taxed twice.”

Gold Loan Account Records and Bank Records validates Gold Loan Business: ITAT deletes Addition of Cash Withdrawals u/s 69C

Mahendra Singh Dasana vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1461

The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted addition of cash withdrawal under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, observing that the documentary evidence including gold loan records validated gold loan business, thus there is no unexplained nature in the withdrawal.

The Bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) examined the nature of the gold loan business, bank statements, gold loan accounts, borrower ledgers, customer confirmation letters, alongside other supporting documents furnished by the assessee.

Unsigned Loose Paper Not Convincingly Explained: ITAT Restores ₹75 Lakh On-Money Addition u/s 69A to CIT(A)

Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax vs Mehta Emporium Jewellers  CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1462

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the assessee's explanation for an unsigned loose paper found during search was not convincing and restored the Rs. 75 lakh addition under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication.

The two-member bench, comprising Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member), observed that the assessee's explanation that the document may have been received from a customer while giving jewellery for repair and wrapped in paper did not appear convincing.

Cash Deposit of ₹1.91 Cr Addition Quashed: ITAT Rules Sales Substantiated by Audited Books, VAT Returns, and Stock Records

Ayesha Steels (P) Ltd vs ITO,Ward-3(4)Civic Centre CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1463

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside an addition of Rs. 1.91 crore made under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE and held that the cash deposits during the demonetization period, were duly recorded as sales in the assessee’s audited books of account, supported by VAT returns and stock records.

The two-member bench comprising Mahavir Singh (Vice President) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member), observed that the cash deposits were included in the sales figures declared in the audited books of account, which were not rejected by the AO.

Unverified Sale Consideration Details: ITAT Remands Capital Gain Addition Matter for Reconsideration

Shivprakash Ramcharan Sharma vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1464

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the matter for fresh adjudication and directed the CIT(A) to verify the assessee’s claims regarding the sale consideration of an immovable property, which led to additions of Rs. 30,09,925 as capital gain.

The Two-member bench, comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), observed that the assessee’s claims regarding the sale consideration required verification.

Non-Compliance with Statutory Notices and Absence of Verifiable Stock Evidence: ITAT Sustains ₹68.07 Lakh Addition as Unexplained Investment

Ramesh Poonamchand Bansal RadhaKrishna Textile Market Vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1465

The Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the addition of ₹68.07 lakh as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified due to the assessee’s failure to comply with statutory notices and substantiate the claimed stock with credible evidence.

The two-member bench, comprising Suchitra Raghunath Kamble (Judicial Member) and Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee’s claim of expenses in M/s Ram Roop Enterprises was unsupported by audited accounts or credible evidence.

Reassessment based on Incorrect Facts not Valid: ITAT Quashes Notice u/s 148

The ITO vs Raj Autos CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1466

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and deleting an addition of Rs. 16,15,47,810 by holding that the reassessment was based on incorrect facts, rendering the proceedings invalid.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member), observed that the AO had relied on erroneous information from the Department’s Insight Portal without verifying it against the assessee’s assessment records.

ITAT Rules Approval u/s 151 Invalid Due to Mechanical Sanction Without Application of Mind, Quashes Reassessment order

ITO vs M/s Antriksh Growth FundLtd  CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1467

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has invalidated reassessment proceedings initiated and declared the approval granted under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as mechanically sanctioned without due application of mind, rendering the reassessment order void.

The two-member bench, comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial Member) and M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) examined the approval proforma and observed that the AO’s citation of Section 147(C), a non-existent provision, indicated a clear lack of application of mind.

Setback for South Indian Bank: ITAT Rules AO Cannot Exceed Scope of S.263 Revision While Passing Consequential Assessment Order

The South Indian Bank Ltd vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1468

The Cochin Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the appeal filed by South Indian Bank Ltd., holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot go beyond the scope of the revision order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 while passing the consequential assessment order.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It found that the issues raised in the appeal did not arise from the consequential assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act. These issues related to additional claims made before the CIT(A) against the assessment order.

Relief for Goldman Sachs: ITAT Deletes ₹19.8 lakh TP Adjustment u/s 92CA as Margins Exceeds Comparables

Goldman Sachs (India) SecuritiesPvt. Ltd vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1469

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Goldman Sachs by deleting a ₹19.8 lakh transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA of Income Tax Act,1961 as margins exceeded comparables.

The two member bench comprising Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) considered the submissions of both sides and examined the material on record. Based on discussions with the assessee’s employees during APA proceedings in earlier years, it was noted that these employees had earned carried interest from the GS Group ranging from about ₹1.5 crore to ₹5 crore.

Erroneous Double Addition of ₹13.32 Lakh in Income Computation: ITAT Directs AO to Correct and Recompute Taxable Income

Illaben Jayantkumar Doshi vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1470

The Rajkot Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to correct the erroneous double addition of ₹13.32 lakh in the assessee’s income computation and recompute the taxable income.

A single member bench comprising Dr.A.L.Saini (Accountant Member) heard both parties, reviewed the submissions, documents, and case laws cited, and examined the facts, including the findings of the CIT(A).

Relief for PNB: ITAT Deletes TDS Demand for AY 2016-17 After Accepting Complete Forms 15G/15H

Punjab National Bank vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1471

The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the appeal by Punjab National Bank and deleted the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) demand of Rs. 7,48,060 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 after accepting complete Forms 15G/15H submitted by the assessee.

The two member bench comprising Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) perused the assessee’s paper book and observed that copies of Form No. 15G/15H containing the requisite details with all columns duly filled were furnished. It noted that similar demands were raised for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, where the assessee had submitted similar documents to the CIT(A), who deleted those demands.

TDS Credit Allowable to Person in Whose Hands Income is Assessable as per Rule 37BA Income Tax Rules: ITAT

Lovely Das vs Addl/JCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1472

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allows Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) credit to the person in whose hands the income is assessable under Rule 37BA of Income Tax Rules,1962.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) reviewed the case and noted that under Rule 37BA, if income belongs to someone other than the person from whose name TDS was deducted, the TDS credit should be given to the actual income owner, provided proper declaration is made and records are updated.

Disallowance of Delayed Employee ESI and PF Contributions: ITAT Condones Delay and Remits Matter to AO for Verification

Hindustan Spimg Engineering Pvtvs Assistant Director of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1473

The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) condoned delay and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO ) for verification regarding the disallowance of delayed employee Employee State Insurance ( ESI ) and Provident Fund ( PF ) contributions under section 43B of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) heard both sides and looked at the records. The assessee filed the original return on 30.10.2018, showing income of Rs. 60,15,699. The return was processed under section 143(1), increasing income to Rs. 89,03,800.

Partnership Firm Losses Cannot be Added Back in Book Profit Calculation u/s 115JB: ITAT

The Birla Group Holding PrivateLimited vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), Ujjain CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1474

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) ruled that partnership firm losses cannot be added back while calculating book profit under section 115JB of Income Tax Act,1961.

The tribunal found the revenue’s reliance on other judgments misplaced, stating that book profit computation under section 115JB must follow the specific provisions of the Explanation strictly. Losses could not be mechanically added back unless explicitly provided for.

Assessments u/s 153C Quashed: ITAT Rules Notices for AY 2008-09 to 2012-13 Invalid Due to Limitation and Lack of Valid Satisfaction

Smt. Prema Devi vs The DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1475

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has invalidated assessment proceedings initiated under Section153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09 to 2012-13 due to the notices being barred by limitation and lacking valid satisfaction as required under the law.

The Two-member bench comprising Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and S. R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that for AY 2008-09, the notice under Section 153C was issued beyond the permissible six-year period, as the satisfaction note fell outside the statutory limit.

Non-Furnishing of Form No.67 before Due Date u/s 139(1) not Fatal to Claim Foreign Tax Credit: ITAT

Vaibhav Singh vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1476

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the failure to furnish Form No. 67 before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act does not automatically disentitle an assessee from claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC).

The Jaipur Bench, comprising Dr. S. Seethalakshmi (Judicial Member) and Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountant Member), agreed with Singh. Referring to its earlier rulings in Juan Miguel Guerrero Ferrer v. DCIT and Rajesh Kumar Lakhran v. ITO, the Tribunal reiterated that neither Section 90 nor the DTAA stipulates that late filing of Form 67 would nullify an FTC claim. Rule 128, the bench observed, is procedural and cannot override substantive treaty rights.

ITAT Deletes Unexplained Cash Credit Addition of ₹2.85 Lakh u/s 68 Due to Lack of AO Verification of Broker Documents

Darius Sam Motashaw vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1477

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the unexplained cash credit addition of ₹2.85 lakh under section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961,due to the Assessing Officer’s (AO) failure to verify the broker documents.

A single member bench of Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) heard the counsels of both parties, reviewed the materials on record, and examined the orders passed by the authorities.

[BREAKING] ITAT allows Income Tax Rebate u/s 87A on STCG under New Regime

Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsanavs ITO, Ward-1(9) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1478

In a major relief to minor investors, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has allowed the appeal of the assessee and held that the rebate under Section 87A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is available even when the assessee’s total income comprises short-term capital gains (STCG) taxable under Section 111A, provided the total income does not exceed ₹7,00,000 and the assessee has opted for the new tax regime under Section 115BAC(1A).

The Tribunal observed that neither Section 87A nor Section 111A contained any express restriction for AY 2024-25, and the prospective amendment in the Finance Act, 2025 effective AY 2026-27 confirmed the absence of such a bar for the year under appeal. It held that Section 87A operates independently under Chapter VIII and applies to total tax computed, regardless of whether it arises from slab or special rates, provided the income threshold is met.

Legal Representative Updation on Death of Assessee on Income Tax Portal is Sufficient Intimation of Death: ITAT Rules Section 147 Proceedings Void Ab Initio

Mrs. Surekha vs The Income TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1479

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bangalore Bench, has held that once the death of an assessee and the particulars of the legal representative are duly updated on the Income Tax e-filing portal, such updation constitutes sufficient intimation to the Income Tax Department.

The Bench stated that even the filing of an appeal in such cases through the online system is only possible if the legal representative’s details are already recorded. The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) after such updates and proceeding to complete assessment under Section 147 amounted to a fatal jurisdictional defect.

Property Investment Source Partly Explained through Brother’s Gift and Savings: ITAT Partly reduces Addition u/s 69C

Dhanasekaran Ramasamy vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1480

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ), Chennai Bench, has partly allowed an appeal in a case involving additions under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of unexplained investments, holding that certain sums invested in property were satisfactorily explained as sourced from personal savings and brother’s gift.

The Bench held that ₹7.20 lakh shown as an opening balance in the partnership ledger could not be taxed in the relevant year.

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeals in Absence of Incriminating Material in Unabated Assessments, Upholds Deletion of S.68 Additions of ₹ 2.71 Cr

ITO vs Uniglobal Papers Pvt.Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1481

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeals for three assessment years and held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, no additions can be made in unabated assessments under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) agreed with the CIT(A)’s findings and relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pr. CIT v. Abhiser Buildwell (2023), where the court reiterated that in non-abated/completed assessments under section 153A, no addition can be made without incriminating material found during a search.

Condonation of Delay Over Spam Email: ITAT Remands 12AB Registration Application to CIT(E

Umia Charitable Trust 301 vs CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1482

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned the delay in filing an appeal after finding that the impugned order had been sent by the department was to the assessee’s spam folder, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (CIT(E)) for fresh consideration of its application for the registration under section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) observed that there was no effective service of the order on the assessee and relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Collector vs. Mst. Katiji (1987), where the court condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits.

Objects Held Not Charitable as Benefits Limited to Members, Not Public at Large: ITAT Upholds CIT(E) Order Rejecting 12AB Registration

The Ahmedabad EngineeringManufactures vs The CIT (Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1483

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (CIT(E)) rejecting the 12AB registration as its objects were for the benefit of its members and employees or ex-employees only, and not for the public at large.

The Bench, comprising Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member), found that the objects were not aimed at the general public but at a specific section of society. It agreed with the CIT(E) that such objects could not be termed charitable under section 2(15).

AO Obtains Invalid Sanction for Reopening Assessment Beyond Three Years u/s 148: ITAT Quashes Notice and Proceedings

Niraj Sarju Mandal vs DCITCentral Circle CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1484

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) quashed the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and reassessment proceedings, as the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment beyond three years without proper approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority.

A single member bench of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) examined the arguments and orders carefully. It found that the case was reopened after more than three years from the end of the assessment year.

₹4.24 Crore Received from Brother Treated as Unexplained Cash Credit: ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Deletion Citing Documentary and Third-Party Evidence

Income Tax Officer vs SarlaMurli Teckchandaniv CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1485

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) citing documentary and third-party evidence, upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)]’s order deleting the ₹4.24 crore addition made under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961, for unexplained cash credit received from the assessee’s brother.

The two member bench comprising Justice (RETD.) C.V.Bhadang (President) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) considered the submissions and examined whether the respondent-assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of ₹4,24,97,520.

Rs.10 Cr Deposited Bank Account Treated as Unexplained: ITAT Remands Matter for Rehearing

Sapna Sameer vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1486

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remanded a case for fresh assessment where cash deposits of about ₹10 crore in the assessee’s bank account were treated as unexplained.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) noted that the assessee was not properly represented before both the AO and the CIT(A). The assessee counsel sought a remand, while the departmental representative supported the CIT(A)’s order.

Audit u/s 44AB Not Required and Penalty u/s 271B Not Leviable When No Books of Account Maintained: ITAT

Bhaveshbhai Haribhai Kanani vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1487

The Rajkot Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that audit under section 44AB is not required and penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act,1961 is not leviable when no books of account are maintained.

A single member bench of Dr.A.L Saini (Accountant Member) heard both parties, reviewed the submissions, documents, case laws, and the findings of the CIT(A). It noted that the assessee had filed the return under section 44AD, under which maintaining books of account was not required. Since no books were maintained, no penalty could be imposed under section 271B.

Denial of TDS Credit Due to Form 26AS Mismatch: ITAT Directs AO to Verify Taxpayer Receipt and Allow Full Credit

Sonali Dhawan vs ITO,International Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1488

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify the taxpayer receipt and allow full credit where the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit was denied due to a Form 26AS mismatch.

The two member bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) noted that data may not always reflect in Form 26AS due to technical or other reasons. Where the assessee provided proper evidence, she could not be denied the TDS credit, subject to verification.

Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for Multiple Defaults Reduced to One: ITAT Limits Levy to Rs. 10,000

Anila Narendra Sangani vs IncomeTax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1489

The Rajkot Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) partly allowed an appeal and held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act,1961 for multiple defaults is reduced to one, limiting the levy to Rs. 10,000 for the Assessment Year (AY )2013-14.

A single member bench Dr. A.L. Saini (Accountant Member) noted that the assessee, being illiterate and a farmer, had relied on his tax consultant, who failed to respond to the first notice during assessment. Since the assessee complied with subsequent notices, the tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) should be imposed for one default only.

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