ITAT Weekly Round-up [August 2nd- August 9th]

ITAT Mumbai Quashes PCIT's Order Against NTT Global Networks; Allows ₹92.32 Lakh Deduction for CSR Donations Under Section 80G

NTT Global Networks PrivateLimited vs PCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1412

The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling allowed the appeal of NTT Global Networks Pvt. Ltd., quashing the revisionary order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) which had denied deductions claimed towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) donations under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) observed that the AO had inquired into the issue by verifying the relevant documentary evidence and had taken a plausible view that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for all donations made up to 30.06.2020 for FY 2019-20.

Income Tax Computation without Brought-Forward Business Losses, Unabsorbed Depreciation: ITAT Quashes CIT(A) Order

Hanning Motors India Pvt.Ltd vsThe Dy.CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1413

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), in a recent ruling set aside the order Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) that had summarily dismissed an appeal challenging the computation of income without allowing the set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation.

The Bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) set aside the order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) -TP for fresh adjudication on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

Stock Trader Wins Appeal: ITAT Rules 63 Client Code Changes Alone Can’t Prove Income Escape

Chandresh Luniya vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1414

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed a Rs. 12.56 lakh tax addition against a share trader, holding that frequent client code modifications (CCMs) alone cannot establish tax evasion without concrete evidence of collusion or undisclosed income. The ruling emphasizes that reopening assessments after four years requires proof of the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, not just suspicion.

Judicial Members Senthil Kumar and Kochar's order could influence pending CCM-related cases across tribunals, particularly where additions are made without establishing direct beneficiary links or quantifying actual tax impact. However, the ruling doesn't blanketly immunize CCMs - it merely insists on higher evidentiary standards before treating them as tax evasion tools.

Assessee Wins Appeal as ITAT Slams CIT(A) for Skipping Key Legal Challenge on Search-Based Notice

Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad vsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1415

The Pune Bench Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an income addition of Rs.72.18 lakh against a Jalgaon resident, ruling that the CIT(A) committed a "serious jurisdictional error" by failing to adjudicate a crucial legal challenge against the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated through a third-party search. The tribunal emphasized that appellate authorities cannot ignore substantive legal grounds while deciding tax appeals.

The ITAT bench comprising Accountant Member Dr. Dipak P. Ripote and Judicial Member Vinay Bhamore found the CIT(A) inexplicably bypassed this fundamental legal challenge despite it being the first ground in Mohammad's appeal. Quoting the Bombay High Court's Premkumar Arjundas Luthra ruling (2017), the tribunal reiterated that CIT(A)s must decide all issues arising from an assessment order, whether or not specifically pressed by the appellant. "The law doesn't permit appellate authorities to cherry-pick grounds," the order stated, noting that CIT(A)s have coterminous powers with AOs and must examine all aspects of a case.

ITAT Slashes Tax Demand: Pune Developer’s Rs.1.1 Cr Cash Deposits Partly Accepted as Business Income

Tanaji Parilal Gawade vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1416

The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) reduced a tax demand on a plot seller by 77%, ruling that cash deposits in rural land transactions can't be entirely treated as unexplained income when supported by business records. The tribunal adopted a pragmatic approach by estimating income at 10% of turnover instead of upholding the department's blanket additions.

Vice President R.K. Panda and Judicial Member Vinay Bhamore observed that while Gawade failed to provide complete details in the format demanded by the tax office, he had submitted purchase agreements, ledger copies, and expense vouchers during assessment. The bench noted the inherent nature of Gawade's rural plotting business involved cash transactions, and crucially, the total bank deposits didn't exceed his declared turnover - indicating possible oversight rather than concealment.

Reassessment After 4 Years With Same Set of Facts Which Already Available During Original Assessment Legally Bad: ITAT

HMG Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs ITO,Ward (1)(1)(4) Income Tax Department

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1417

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the reassessment order and declared the reopening of the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 after 4 years with the same set of facts as bad in law.

The two-member bench comprising Shri Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) observed that the reopening was initiated after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, making the first provision to Section 147 applicable.

BroadBand and Bandwidth Charges Not a Royalty: ITAT Dismisses TDS claim of Revenue

Hinduja Global Solutions vs DCITCITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1418

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order that deleted disallowances related to payments for broadband and bandwidth charges rejecting TDS claim.

The two-member bench, comprising Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member), heard the appeals ex-parte as no representative appeared for the assessee despite notices.

S. 80G Application Rejected without Independent Scrutiny: ITAT Sets aside CIT(E) Orders

Aruna Kishor Foundation B-203 vsCIT(Exemption) Vejalpur Ahmedabad

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1420

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [ CIT(E) ] citing that the application for income tax deduction under Section 80G of income tax act, 1961 was rejected without independent scrutiny.

The two-member bench comprising Suchitra R. Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(E)’s rejection of the Section 12AB application lacked verification of whether the exemptions were claimed under Sections 11, 12, or 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act.

Cash Deposits Treated as Unexplained u/s 69A: ITAT Restores Matter to AO Noting Failure to Examine Debit Entries and Additional Evidence

Umeshbhai Ramanlal Shah vsIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1421

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) after noting that cash deposits of ₹18.32 lakh were treated as unexplained under Section 69A of Income Tax Act,1961,without examining debit entries or considering additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) noted that the AO treated the entire cash deposit of ₹18.32 lakh as unexplained without verifying the bank statement or checking debit entries.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

Email Notice Sent to ID Not Cited in Form 35: ITAT Remits Matter Noting Sufficient Cause for Non-Compliance

Dinesh Kumar Mishra vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1422

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remitted the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] ruling that notices were sent to an incorrect email ID which was not mentioned in Form 35 constitute a sufficient cause for non-compliance.

The two-member bench comprising Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member), observed that the CIT(A)’s use of an incorrect email ID resulted in an ex-parte order that violated natural justice principles.

Additional Evidence Filed for Supporting Genuineness of Business Advance: ITAT Remands ₹30 Cr Unexplained Credit Matter

Oracle Farms LLP vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1423

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed the admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, to substantiate the genuineness of a business advance and remanded the addition of Rs. 30 crore as unexplained credit under Section 68, to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

The two-member bench comprising Shamim Yahya (Accountant Member) and Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member), observed that the additional evidence submitted under Rule 29 was relevant for adjudication.

Evidence For Normal Business Activity: ITAT Upholds Surrendered ₹1.60 Cr as Business Income, Rejects S. 115BBE Application

Swati Industries vs The DCITCentral Circle-3 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1424

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that the Rs. 1.60 crore surrendered during a survey constitutes normal business income, dismissing the Revenue’s contention that it should be taxed as unexplained income under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member), observed that the survey revealed evidence of suppressed scrap sale prices, as noted in the assessee’s surrender letter.

S.12A Registration Mandatory For Claiming S. 11 Exemption: ITAT Upholds ₹5.80 Crore Addition to Town Planning Authority

Doddaballapur Planning Authorityvs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1425

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled a valid registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory to claim exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench comprising Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) observed that registration under Section 12A is a precondition for claiming exemptions under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act.

Only Investments Yielding Exempt Income Can Be Considered Under Section 14A: ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal Against Assessee

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), vsAryan Mining and Trading Corporation Limited

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1426

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently upheld the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], bringing clarity to the contentious issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The appeal, filed by the Department against Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Limited, challenged the CIT(A)’s direction to restrict disallowance only to investments that actually yielded exempt income during the relevant financial year.

After hearing both sides, the ITAT bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) sided with the assessee and upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the AO had mechanically applied Rule 8D without examining whether the investments actually yielded exempt income. As per established law, including the judgment in REI Agro Ltd. vs DCIT and its affirmation by the Calcutta HighCourt, only those investments which generate exempt income in the relevant financial year can be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D.

Form 10 ID must be Filed within Due Date Specified u/s 139(1) for availing Concessional Rate u/s 115BAB : ITAT

Vivrn Foods Private Limited vsThe Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1427

The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Form 10ID must be filed within the due date specified under Section 139(1) for availing for the concessional tax rate under Section 115BAB of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench comprising Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member), observed that the assessee filed Form 10ID on 21.09.2024 was after the due date of the first return filed on 24.02.2022 for the assessment year 2022-23.

Deduction Under Section 80P Upheld for Regional Rural Bank: ITAT Confirms Co-operative Society Status Under RRB Act

The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs Pandyan Grama Bank CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1428

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has affirmed eligibility for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by recognizing assessee’s status as a co-operative society under Section 22 of the Regional Rural Bank (RRB) Act, 1976.

The two-member bench, comprising Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and S. R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that Section 22 of the RRB Act clearly designates RRBs as co-operative societies for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.

How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here

ITAT Restores Assessee’s Appeal After NFAC Dismisses it for Non-Compliance: Grants One Last Opportunity with Cost

Subramaniyam Kulandhaivel vs TheIncome Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1429

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the appeal of an assessee, Subramaniyam Kulandhaivel, which had been dismissed ex-parte by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The Tribunal expressed concern over the assessee’s repeated non-compliance but nevertheless chose to allow one final opportunity for him to present his case, albeit with a cost of ₹25,000.

The ITAT consisting of George George K. (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Memeber) clarified that the assessee must furnish proof of payment within one month from the date of the order. It also directed the AO to give a reasonable opportunity to the assessee but warned the latter against seeking unnecessary adjournments or failing to cooperate.

Unexplained Stock and Sales Suppression Additions: ITAT Upholds CIT(A)’s Order Citing Single CCTV Footage and Lack of Corroborative Evidence

Dy. CIT-17(1) vs Late RameshPannalal Ranawat CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1430

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] order and ruled that the Assessing Officer's estimations, reliant on a single-day CCTV footage and contradictory statements, were unsustainable without supporting evidence.

The two-member bench, comprising Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), observed that the AO's sales estimation lacked rational basis, ignoring seasonal fluctuations, holidays, and customer behavior in jewellery trade.

MAT Credit Revised from ₹29.17 Cr to ₹29.94 Cr Post-Appellate Recalculation: ITAT Upholds Higher Claim

JCIT(OSD) I/C. to DCITCircle1(3)(1) vs Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1431

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)’s direction to allow Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit of Rs. 29,94,40,364 under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ruled that the revision from the originally claimed Rs. 29,17,19,510 was consequential to the deletion of additions in appellate proceedings.

The two-member bench comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member), observed that the Revenue did not contest the deletion of additions under Sections 35(1) and 41 of the Income Tax Act.

Genuine Delay in Producing 70 Year Old Trust Deed: ITAT quashes Rejection of S.12A & 80G Claims

Quilon Poor Home Mundakkal Westvs The CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1432

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, has set aside the rejection of applications under sections 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing that the default was procedural and not substantive as the appellant was unable to furnish a certified copy of its 70 year old trust deed within the stipulated time due to genuine and unavoidable delay.

The bench comprising Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), found that the rejection was due to procedural default, specifically non-furnishing of the certified trust deed, which the assessee now states is ready for submission.

Unexplained Credit Addition u/s 68: ITAT Upholds CIT(A)’s Order, Citing Retraction of Statements and Documentary Evidence

DCIT CC – 7(3) vs M/s. TirupatiDevelopers CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1433

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,93,00,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and ruled that the loan transaction was genuine, supported by retracted statements, regulatory compliances, and financial records of the lender.

The two-member bench, comprising Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member), observed that the CIT(A) thoroughly examined the evidence, including RBI compliances, High Court-sanctioned mergers, and bank records, with no discrepancies identified.

Bogus LTCG Addition u/s 68 Not Sustainable: ITAT Validates Demerger-Allotted Shares Transaction Citing Genuineness of Documentary Evidence

Heaven Mahendra Shah vs Asst.CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1434

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the long-term capital gains (LTCG) from sale of shares allotted pursuant to a demerger scheme were genuine, as the assessee proved genuineness by comprehensive documentary evidence.

The two-member bench, comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member), observed that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by submitting unchallenged documents proving the genuineness of the demerger and sales.

Identity Misuse in Bank Account: ITAT Sets Aside Addition and Directs AO to Conduct Fresh Probe

Mayankkumar Rameschandra Bhattvs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1435

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the addition of ₹15,97,500 made as unexplained cash deposits and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to conduct a fresh probe after finding strong evidence of identity misuse in a bank account linked to the assessee.

The two member bench comprising Suchitra R.Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V.Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) reviewed the case, including the orders of the lower authorities, the affidavit, RTI replies, bank documents, and an FIR filed alleging identity fraud and misuse of PAN.

Delay in Filing Appeal Due to Illiteracy and Email Issues: ITAT Condones 349-Day Delay, Restores Ex-Parte Assessment to AO for Verification

Ningaiah Siddu vs The DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) & TPS

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1436

Ningaiah Siddu, The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned a 349-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], attributing it to the assessee’s illiteracy, lack of email access, and reliance on a former auditor and restored the ex-parte assessment for verification of deductions claimed under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member), observed that notices were issued to an email not belonging to the assessee, and the assessment order was not received by him through other means. The bench noted the assessee’s illiterate status and lack of ITBA access constituted sufficient cause for the delay.

Denial of TDS Credit on Farmers Sales by Commission Agent: ITAT Relies on CBDT Circular to Grant Full Credit

Koti Narasimha SrinivasVukkurthi vs Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1(1)

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1437

The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) addressed the denial of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit on farmers’ sales made through a commission agent and relied on Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) to grant full credit

The two member bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President ) and S.Balakrishnan (Accountant Member) heard both sides and reviewed the records along with the orders of the tax authorities. It also examined CBDT Circular No. 452 dated 17.03.1986, cited by the assessee counsel, and referred to its earlier rulings, including Thota Venkateswarlu v. ITO and Yegneswari General Traders v. ITO.

Bogus LTCG Addition without Incriminating Material in Search Assessment Invalid: ITAT Grants Relief u/s 10(38)

Shri Satish Soin vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1438

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted the addition of Rs. 94,59,870 treated as bogus long-term capital gain (LTCG) and ruled that such addition was unsustainable in a search assessment u/s 153A as no incriminating material was found during the search.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member), observed that the AO’s reference to the Kolkata report was theoretical and lacked connection to the assessee’s case.

Adjustment of ₹31.22 Lakh to LTCG: ITAT Remands Case to CIT(A) With One Final Opportunity

Shamrock Apparels vs Income TaxOfficer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1439

The Visakhapatnam Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) remanded the matter to the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] with one final opportunity after noting an adjustment of ₹31.22 lakh made to long-term capital gains in the intimation under Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President) and S.Balakrishnan (Accountant Member) considered the arguments from both sides and examined the records. It observed that the assessee had not complied with several notices and had failed to respond to multiple communications mentioned in the CIT(A)’s order.

Railway Guard Wins Tax Relief: ITAT orders Fresh Assessment After TDS Credit Denial Due to Missed Notices

Kushal Prashad Sahu vs AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1440

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur Bench, has granted relief to a Goods Train Guard with South Eastern Central Railway, directing a fresh assessment after tax authorities denied him credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) worth ₹2.46 lakh. The tribunal noted that Sahu, due to the nature of his job, missed receiving tax notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment that ignored his legitimate tax claims.

The ITAT bench comprising Judicial Member Ravish Sood and Accountant Member Arun Khodpia set aside the assessment and penalty orders, directing the AO to re-examine the case. The tribunal stressed that Sahu must be given a fair opportunity to present his documents, including proof of TDS and eligible deductions.

ITAT slashes Tax Demand on Builder LLP, Rejects 'On-Money' Extrapolation Due to Lack of Evidence

Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP vsACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1441

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has significantly reduced the tax demand on Meenamani Ganga Builder LLP, ruling that the Income Tax Department could not justify its additions based on alleged "on-money" (undisclosed cash payments) receipts without concrete evidence. The tribunal also rejected the department's attempt to extrapolate the alleged unaccounted income to other transactions, citing a lack of corroborative material.

The ITAT, comprising Vice President R.K. Panda and Judicial Member Astha Chandra, scrutinized the evidence and noted critical gaps in the department's case. The tribunal observed that the sales manager's statement, recorded under Section 131, was not backed by any independent verification from buyers or additional incriminating material. Moreover, the managing partner's denial of on-money receipts was not properly confronted or investigated by the tax authorities.

ITAT Directs AO to Delete Surcharge and Cess Wrongly Levied on Income Below ₹50 Lakh

N K Infra JV vs ADIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1442

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) directed the Assessing Officer (A0) to delete surcharge of ₹1,11,269 and cess of ₹4,451 that had been wrongly levied despite the assessee’s income being below ₹50 lakh.

A single member bench comprising Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) reviewed the submissions made by both parties and examined the orders of the lower authorities. It agreed with the assessee counsel’s argument that the surcharge and additional cess were not applicable since both the returned and assessed income were below ₹50 lakh.

ITAT Scraps Rs. 14.2 Crore 'On-Money' Tax Demand: No Evidence Found Against Real Estate Firm

Ganraj Homes LLP vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1443

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune bench, has quashed a ₹14.2 crore tax demand against a real estate firm, ruling that the income tax department failed to provide concrete evidence to prove alleged "on-money" transactions in the firm's real estate projects. The tribunal deleted additions made across three assessment years (2017-18 to 2019-20), holding that the tax authorities relied solely on uncorroborated employee statements and rough notes without examining buyers or partners.

The order brings relief to the real estate sector, where on-money allegations often arise from ambiguous documentation. By insisting on direct evidence and due process, the ITAT has set a clear benchmark for such cases, ensuring taxpayers aren't penalized based on unsubstantiated inferences.

Rs.28 Lakh Addition under Business Income Unwarranted: ITAT allows Appeal as CIT(A) misses Capital Gain Rectification

Yogesh Himatlal Thakker vs TheIncome-Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1444

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench at Ahmedabad, has held that the addition of ₹28,03,587 to business income in the case of Yogesh Himatlal Thakker was unwarranted, allowing his appeal and finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in failing to notice a rectification already carried out by the Central Processing Centre (CPC).

The bench, comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice-President) and Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), delivered its order on February 11, 2025, in ITA No. 1362/Ahd/2024, relating to the assessment year 2020-21.

Ex-Parte Rejection of 80G Approval Application Set Aside: ITAT Directs CIT (Exemption) to Re-Examine Takshashila Education and Charitable Trust’s Plea

Takshashila Education vs TheCommissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1445

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, quashed the ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, rejecting Takshashila Education and Charitable Trust’s application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal remitted the application to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, directing the department to issue fresh notices and afford the trust an opportunity to be heard. The Trust must comply promptly with any queries and provide complete documentation to support its eligibility for 80G approval.

Salaried Taxpayer Wins ₹1.46 Lakh Income Tax Penalty Case Despite Misreporting: Here’s How

Sachin Baban Shinde vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1446

In a recent ruling, the Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) provided relief to a salaried taxpayer who was wrongly penalised for underreporting income. The tribunal cancelled a penalty of Rs. 1,46,760 imposed by the Income Tax Department acknowledging that the misreporting was not intentional and had occurred due to the fraudulent actions of a tax consultant.

The two-member bench comprising Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) observed that the taxpayer was from a technical background and could not be expected to have expertise in tax laws. The tribunal accepted that he had relied entirely on the consultant and had no knowledge of the wrongful claims made in the return.

S. 80P Deduction Disallowance: ITAT rejects Death of CA being Not Valid Reason for 388 Day Delay for Appeal

Indian Overseas Bank EmployeesCooperative Credit Society Limited vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1447

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) rejected the plea to condone a 388-day delay in filing an appeal against disallowance of deduction under Section 80P of Income Tax Act,1961, holding that the death of the Chartered Accountant (CA) was not a valid reason since the society had continued to pursue the matter even after the CA’s demise.

A single member bench comprising Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President) considered submissions from both sides and reviewed the condonation petition, the CA’s death certificate issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, and the order passed by the CIT(A).

Tax Consultant’s Negligence and Rural Location Causes 253-Day Appeal Delay: ITAT Remands Cash Deposit Case for fresh Adjudication

Primary Agricultural CreditCo-operative Society Ltd. vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1449

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has condoned a delay of 253 days in filing an appeal and observed that the delay was due to the assessee’s location in a backward rural area and the negligence caused by its tax consultant.

The bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) held that it was just and proper to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and provide all necessary evidence and explanation.

CIT(A) Mistakes Appeal Against 143(1) Intimation as u/s 154 Order: ITAT Sets Aside Dismissal, Remands for Fresh Adjudication on 80P Deduction

Rani Channamma Co-operativeCredit Society Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1450

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CITA (A) ) and observed that the appeal filed was inadvertently treated by CIT(A) as one that arose from a rectification order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of against an intimation order issued under section 143(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) noted from records that the CIT(A) had inadvertently passed the order under a mistake that the appeal was against a section 154 rectification rejection.

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