ITAT WEEKLY ROUND-UP [ July 7th - July 12th ]

 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 July 7th, 2025 to July 12th, 2025.

Share Capital and Premium from NRI: ITAT Upholds Deletion of Addition u/s 68 as it Received through Proper Channels

DCIT vs M/s.Bits N Bytes Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1211

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the deletion of addition under Section 68 of IncomeTax Act,1961,on share premium received from non-resident investors by the assessee, a company engaged in vehicle tracking and related services, citing proven identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investment.

The two member bench comprising C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) and M.Balaganesh (Accountant Member) found that the assessee had received share capital and premium from the same non-resident investors who had invested in earlier years. In those years, similar additions made by the AO were already deleted by the CIT(A).

ITAT Allows 80JJAA Deduction Despite Delay in Filing Form 10DA, Terms It Procedural

AnalytixBusiness Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1212

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) allowed the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA of Income Tax Act,1961, despite a 29-day delay in filing Form 10DA, treating the delay as procedural.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of the ₹92.60 lakh deduction under Section 80JJAA. It noted that the delay in filing Form 10DA was only procedural and did not affect the assessee’s eligibility for the deduction. The appellate tribunal directed the CPC/AO to allow the claim.

Form 67 Filed in Time Under Amended R. 128(9): ITAT Allows ₹49.65 Lakh FTC

Shri VishalNegi Hyderabad vs Dy. CIT Circle 8 (1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1213

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claim of Rs. 49,65,491 and set aside the the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s order, as Form 67 was filed within the timeline prescribed under the amended Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the AO to allow the FTC of Rs. 49,65,491 as claimed in the return, considering the Form 67 filed on 15/12/2022, which provided details of the income and taxes paid abroad. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

ITAT condones 234-day delay in filing Income Tax Appeal due to Missed Email Communication because of Accountant's resignation

Aditya Prohouse Private vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1214

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned the 234 days delay in filing the income tax appeal due to the accountant's resignation. It was found that the former accountant’s email was used for communications for which the assessee missed crucial information, leading to an ex parte appellate order.

The two-member bench, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member )examined the records and noted that the CIT(A) had passed the ex-parte order due to the delay in responding.

Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) allowable to Co-Op Society on Interest Income from co-op banks: ITAT rules in Favour of Bangalore Credit Co- operative Society

ITO vs M/s.Bangalore Credit Co-operative CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1215

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Bangalore Credit Cooperative Society is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements.

A two member bench of Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements.

Selecting Wrong Income Tax Section Code/Clause would Not Disentitle Appellant to Rightful Claim: ITAT directs de novo Hearing

SocialNetworking Forum vs CIT (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1216

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Selection of the wrong clause by the appellant cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings initiated after the filing of the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not disentitle the applicant to its rightful claim.

The bench, comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member), noted that the denial of the 80G application was based on a hyper-technical ground that the wrongful selection of the section code in Form 10AB.

CIT(A) Ignores Reply & Computation Showing Income Variation: ITAT Remands for Denovo Adjudication

Mehi PowerTransformers vs DCIT-4(1) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1217

The Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling set aside an order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) and remanded the matter for denovo adjudication as CIT(A) had not considered the reply and the computation sheet showed a variation in the assessed income.

The bench held that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded on a denovo basis with a direction to the CIT(A) to pass a well reasoned order on merits after giving full and complete opportunity to the assessee.

‘Detailed Enquiry and Proper Application of Mind by AO While Allowing Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)’: ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Revision Order

Pune ZilhaMadhyawarti Sahakari vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1218

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-3, Pune, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by noting that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a detailed enquiry and applied his mind properly while allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

The ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order and restored the AO’s original assessment dated 02.12.2022. The bench comprising Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee’s appeal.

ITAT Remands Case After Assessee Submits Cash Summaries, Audit Report, and Valuation Documents for Reconsideration

Tanveer Alam vsIncome Tax officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1219

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after the assessee submitted additional documents, including cash summaries, audited accounts, and a valuer’s report, to substantiate his claims regarding unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.

The ITAT, comprising Pradip Kumar Chaoubey (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

Co-op Bank Fails to Prove Identity and Creditworthiness of Depositors: ITAT upholds S. 68 addition and dismisses claim u/s 80P(2)(i)(a)

PeeroorkadaService Co-op. Bank Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1220

The Cochin bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by Peeroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and upheld the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and rejected the bank’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act by noting that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of depositors whose cash credits were brought to tax.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the Section 68 addition, rejecting the bank’s argument that maintaining customer secrecy prevented it from disclosing depositor details. The Tribunal noted that banking regulations mandate Know Your Customer (KYC) records, and the bank’s failure to provide such details justified the AO’s action. The ITAT dismissed the bank’s claim that the addition under Section 68 should qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a), noting that the bank had not proven the deposits originated from disclosed business income.

ITAT Sets Aside Best Judgment Assessment u/s 144, Orders Fresh Hearing Noting Prior Grant of S.11 Exemption

Weaker Section and Tribal Rehabilitation Charitable Trust vs The ACIT (Exemptions)

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1221

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside a best judgment assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee, noting the prior grant of exemption under Section 11 to the Trust for the previous assessment year.

The bench observed that the assessment was not completed on best judgment basis under 144 of the Act by denying exemption under 11 of the Act. The bench noted that for the previous assessment year, 2017-18, a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was carried out, giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Dismisses Rs. 6.80 Cr Addition u/s 69A as Finds Transactions Duly Recorded and Explained by Assessee

Income TaxOfficer vs Ramanbhai Jagabhai Bharwad CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1222

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of a Rs. 6.80 crore addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by noting that the assessee had sufficiently explained the transactions, which were duly recorded in his books of account, and the Department failed to disprove the evidence provided.

The bench accepted the assessee’s explanation that it was a repayment of an advance, supported by ledger entries, confirmations, and the lender’s income tax returns. The Tribunal observed that refunds of advances cannot be taxed as income under Section 68 or 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Business Receipts Is Substantiated Source of Cash Deposit: ITAT overturns ₹5.01 Lakh Addition

TekchandHarilal vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1223

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has overturned the addition of Rs. 5,01,500 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ruled that the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period were substantiated as business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits as business receipts, and the AO was not justified in treating them as unexplained money under Section 69A. It directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5,01,500. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Prior Cash Withdrawals For Medical Treatment: ITAT Deletes ₹29.24 Lakh Cash Deposit Addition

SureshSurindersing Yadav vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1224

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Rs. 29,24,571, which was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member), observed that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 67,91,000 from DCB Bank accounts, which exceeded the cash deposits of Rs. 59,67,000.

Delay in Filing Income Tax Appeal Due to Personal Problems: ITAT Condones 99 Days Delay

Subrat Tarai vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1225

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] and condoned a 99-day delay in filing appeals for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 to 2014-15 and directed that the appeal for AY 2017-18 be reconsidered after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The bench set aside the CIT(A)’s orders and remanded all appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate them on merits after providing the assessee a fair opportunity to make submissions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

Interest From Land Acquisition Cannot Be Taxed Under Income from other Sources: ITAT

Sh. SurenderKumar vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1226

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the interest component of enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not taxable as "income from other sources" under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal held that Interest From Land Acquisition Cannot Be Taxed Under Income from other Sources from the binding precedent. The CIT(A)’s order was set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ITAT Quashes Assessment for Lack of Jurisdiction: "Reason to Believe" Framed by Non-Jurisdictional AO Held Invalid Smt.TasleemBano vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1227

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed an assessment order for the financial year 2011-12, holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as it was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO).

The ITAT condoned a 558-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting Bano’s plea that as a homemaker with limited education, she was unaware of the online notices, which were never physically served. Her husband, an NRI residing in Italy, discovered the proceedings only upon visiting India in January 2025, prompting immediate action.

ITAT Deletes Rs. 90.70 Crore Adjustment Made u/s 11(3), Holds Amendment Prospective and Utilization Within Permissible Timeframe YashwantraoChavan Maharashtra vs CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1228

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside an adjustment of Rs. 90.70 crore made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by noting that the amendment to Section 11(3), which reduced the utilization period for accumulated funds from five years plus one additional year to just five years, is prospective and not applicable to accumulations made before the assessment year 2023-24.

The Tribunal noted that since YCMOU had utilized the funds within the permissible six-year window, the adjustment by the CPC was unjustified. It directed the deletion of the Rs. 90.70 crore adjustment and allowed the university's appeal.

Deduction on CSR Donations u/s 80G: ITAT Quashes Revision as AO Verifies Donations to Eligible Institutions Dalal AndBroacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1229

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashes the revision order passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act,1961, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had verified the donations made by the assessee to eligible institutions and allowed deduction under Section 80G, even though the donations were made from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds.

The bench held that while CSR expenses are not allowable under section 37(1), there is no bar on claiming deduction under section 80G if the donations meet the required conditions. In this case, the assessee had submitted receipts from eligible institutions.

Unexplained Cash Credit on ₹31.15 Lakh Loan Repayment: ITAT Upholds Deletion Confirming Genuine Repayment Through Banking Channels DCIT vs M/s New Charan Kanwal Finance company Pvt. ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1230

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the addition of ₹31.15 lakh as unexplained cash credit, upholding the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] and confirming genuine repayment through banking channels.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) heard the parties and reviewed the order. It found that the company had given an unsecured loan of ₹31,15,000 to its group company in the financial year 2019-20.

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 vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1231

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 ITAT set aside the matter to the AO with directions to give the assessee another chance to explain the deposits and submit any supporting evidence. The assessee was told to cooperate, or the assessment would be completed based on available records.

CIT(A)’s Deletion of ₹2.32 Cr Addition u/s 68 Based on Evidence Admitted in Violation of Rule 46A: ITAT Sets Aside Order and Remands to AO DCIT vs AjitSingh Om Parkash Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1232

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)]’s order deleting an addition of ₹2.32 crore under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, noting that the relief was granted based on additional evidence admitted in violation of Rule 46A.

The appellate tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order on this issue and sent the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give proper opportunity to both sides, and the assessee was allowed to submit all relevant evidence during the reassessment.

Rejection of Registration Application for Wrong Section Code: ITAT Allows Revised Form 10D Filing Before CIT(E) Senate ofSerampore College vs CIT(Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1233

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allows revised Form 10D filing before Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption)[CIT(E)], after rejecting the initial registration application for wrong section code.

The two member bench Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) noted that the CIT(E) had directed the assessee to file a fresh Form 10D with the correct section code. The assessee submitted that the e-filing portal only allowed selection of Section 10(23C)(vi) and no other option. An affidavit was also filed in support of this claim.

ITAT Quashes Reassessment Initiated on Mere Suspicion of Money Laundering Without Concrete Evidence Amandeep Singhvs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1234

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee, holding that they were based solely on suspicion of money laundering and lacked any concrete evidence.

The appellate tribunal noted that the reopening reasons related to companies, but the assessee was an individual with a proprietorship, and the AO did not explain how the transactions affected the proprietorship. The AO reopened the case without proper material, essentially conducting a roving inquiry.

Reference to DVO can be Made only During Pendency of Income Tax Assessment or Reassessment Proceedings: ITAT The Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Adish Estates Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1235

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) deleting the addition of ₹2,28,41,677, as the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) was made before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) held that there was no merit in the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal finding no case for interference with the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO.

Non-Service of Notice Through Opted Physical Mode: ITAT Restores Matter to CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication Alok Buildtech Private Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1236

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after observing that notices were not served through the assessee’s opted physical mode.

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after observing that notices were not served through the assessee’s opted physical mode.

Disallowance u/s 14A Inapplicable due to Absence of Exempt Income: ITAT DCIT, CentralCircle-1(1) vs Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1237

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was inapplicable due to the absence of exempt income and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

The tribunal heard both sides and reviewed the CIT(A)'s order. The bench, by relying on the CIT)A)’s findings concluded that as the assessee had not earned any exempt income on its investments in the current year and thus no disallowance under Section 14A should be made.

Inadequate Opportunity of Hearing in Alleged Form 10AB Delayed Filing: ITAT Restores Matter for Reconsideration TewhimaPermaculture vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1238

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] with a direction to reconsider the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The two-member bench, comprising Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member) and Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain its case, particularly since the application was filed before the six-month period from the expiry of the provisional registration.

Partial Relief Granted to Palmshore Hotels: ITAT Directs Reassessment on Business Income Classification and Section 43B Disallowance Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1239

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted partial relief to Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. by directing a reassessment of key issues, including the classification of licence fee income and disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT bench comprising George George K. (Vice President) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the classification of the licence fee income, verify the double inclusion of turnover, reassess the unpaid loan liability, and scrutinise the Section 43B disallowance, ensuring the company is given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

Rejection of Income Tax Appeal citing Time Barred by One Day: ITAT sets aside NFAC’s Dismissal on Hyper-Technical Ground Ecoslag CementsAnd Additives Pvt. Ltd. vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1240

The Panaji Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the dismissal of an income tax appeal by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which was incorrectly held to be time-barred by one day, despite having been filed within the statutory limit.

The Tribunal comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and G. D. Padmahshali (Accountant Member), ordered that an appellate forum created by statute is meant to address the dispute, not to accelerate it to a higher forum perfunctorily.

Major Win for Assessees: ITAT Confirms Deductibility of CSR Donations u/s 80G of Income Tax Act ACG Pam PharmaTechnologies vs PCIT-4 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1241

The Mumbai bench of Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has confirmed that donations made as part of mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013 are indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) in its final order quashed the PCIT's revisionary directive and reinstated the original assessment order thereby upholding the assessee's claim for deduction for its CSR donation.

Serious Illness Prevented Assessee from filing Timely Income Tax Appeal: ITAT Condones Delay in Bank Cash Deposit Dispute Shri AnithaKumari Mehta vs DC/AC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1242

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a 99 day delay in filing an appeal by a fuel retailer in a case involving unexplained cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account. The condonation was accepted as the assessee was having a serious illness, which was a valid cause for the delay and beyond the assessee’s control.

The Tribunal, consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to substantiate her claim. The matter was therefore restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with directions to conduct fresh proceedings after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Relief for Rolls Royce: ITAT Quashes Time-Barred Assessment Order Passed Beyond S.144C(13) Deadline Rolls RoyceIndia Pvt vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1243

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Rolls Royce India Pvt. by quashing the final assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act,1961 holding it to be time-barred and void ab initio.

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Rolls Royce India Pvt. by quashing the final assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act,1961 holding it to be time-barred and void ab initio.

ITAT condones Institute of Nephrourology’s Income Tax Appeals Filed After 5-Year Delay, quashes CIT(A)-NFAC Order for Ignoring COVID-19 Impact Institute of Nephrourology vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1244

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the dismissal of appeals filed by the Institute of Nephrourology after finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) erred in refusing to condone a delay of five years and nineteen days in filing the appeals, without recognizing the bona fide reasons such as dependence on initial professional advice and severe disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and also without considering the merits involved.

The ITAT bench, consisting of Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) disagreed with CIT(A), observing that the length of delay is not a material aspect to decide whether the delay is for sufficient cause or not.

ITAT Criticizes CIT(A) for Rejecting Additional Evidence, Sets Aside Order on Ex Parte Assessment MayankRaghuvanshi vs Income Tax Officer-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1245

The Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate tribunal (ITAT), in a recent decision set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) after finding that the CIT(A) had improperly rejected additional evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings related to an ex parte assessment.

The bench comprising B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member) and Paresh M Joshi (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(A) acting in quasi-judicial capacity was required to adjudicate the first appeal on meritorious grounds especially as the assessment order was admittedly passed under section 144 of the Act.

Cash Deposit Arising Out of Agriculture Income and Past Savings: ITAT Deletes ₹7 Lakh Addition of Senior Citizen Dilip SampatraoYewale vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1246

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and deleted an addition of Rs. 7,38,500 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits as agricultural income and bank withdrawals.

Quantum Of Expenditure Not Relevant for Purposes of S.12AB Registration: ITAT Holds Genuineness of Object, directs to Grant Registration Dhwani ShristiFoundation vs CIT (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1247

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that quantum of expenditure was not relevant for granting registration under section 12AB and holds genuineness of object for granting registration.

The two-member bench comprising Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(E)’s rejection was primarily based on the trust’s low expenditure, despite the assessee submitting all necessary documents.

Chennai ITAT Applies ‘Surviving Period’ Rule for First Time, quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notice Smt. LakshmiNarasimhan Santhi vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1248

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed a reassessment notice holding that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notices under the new regime beyond the “surviving period” prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench comprising George George K (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal had held that reassessment notices under the new regime must be issued within the “surviving period” available under law, which is computed conservatively from the date of the assessee’s reply.

Ex-Parte Income Tax Assessment Against Continuously Absent Assessee: ITAT Restores Case for Meritorious Adjudication Indra Devi vsAC/DC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1249

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has restored an ex-parte income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2013–14, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the matter afresh on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), after hearing the representative of the Revenue Department observed that the assessee had failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing by the Assessing Officer.

Cash Deposit From Prior Withdrawals a Substantiated Source: ITAT Partly Grants Relief of Rs.10.50 Lakh for Deposit During Demonetization HaralurNarayana Reddy Nagaraj vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1250

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief of Rs.10,50,000 by accepting that cash deposits during the demonetization period were sourced from prior withdrawals.

The single-member bench comprising Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice President, observed that the AO had obtained the bank statements directly from Karnataka Bank and used them to make the addition.

Honda Motorcycle India’s ₹10.84 Crore FTS Payment to Asian Honda: ITAT Remands to Determine Taxability & P.E. under India–Thailand DTAA Due to Missing Documents Asian HondaMotor Co vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1251

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal of Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and remanded the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), after noticing that relevant documents to determine the taxability of ₹10.84 crore in Fees for Technical Service (FTS) receipts were not placed on record.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member) found that the issue could not be conclusively determined in the absence of the relevant service agreements.

AO Not Required to Record Categorical Finding For Income Escapement: ITAT Upholds Reassessment Despite Lack of Cross Examination The DCIT vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1252

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) stating that a categorical finding of income escapement is not necessary for reopening an assessment.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the AO received credible information from the investigation unit, indicating that some expenses debited by the assessee could be doubtful.

NHAI Grant Not Deductible from Project Cost: ITAT Upholds Deletion of ₹43.43 Crore Depreciation Disallowance Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax vs Madhucon Agra Expressway Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1253

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 43.43 crore as depreciation and confirmed that the Rs. 38.40 crore grant received from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) cannot be reduced from the project cost for computing depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice-President) and Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), observed that the grant was provided as cash support in the nature of shareholder’s funds to enhance the project’s commercial viability and facilitate additional financing.

Assessee's Failure to Submit Evidence Leads ITAT to Remand Case for Fresh Hearing Raju V.Mahakalkar vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1254

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur Bench has remanded the case of the appellant back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh hearing, after the assessee repeatedly failed to submit evidence or appear before the tax authorities.

residing over the matter, V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, held that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case and substantiate his claims before the appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for all three assessment years and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal also cautioned that the assessee should not seek adjournments without justified reasons.

ITAT Quashes Penalties Citing Revised Audit Report, Rules No Intentional Misreporting by Cooperative Society Panhera GraminBigarsheti vs Income Tax Officer Ward–2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1255

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has quashed penalties totaling ₹7,78,502 imposed on a cooperative society, under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal ruled that the society had not intentionally misreported income and accepted its revised audit report as valid grounds to delete the penalty.

The bench, comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member ) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member), allowed both appeals filed by the cooperative society, bringing relief to the taxpayer. The order underscores that penalties cannot be sustained without evidence of wilful default or malintent, especially when errors are rectified through proper documentation.

ITAT Upholds Deletion of Bogus LTCG Addition, Rules No Evidence of Tax Evasion in Share Transactions Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(1) vs Shri Nandkumar KhatumalHarchandani CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1256

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete a ₹5.60 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Nagpur-based assessee Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani. The assessing officer had treated long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions as bogus, alleging accommodation entries, but the tribunal found no concrete evidence to justify the tax evasion claim.

The order was pronounced by the Bench comprising V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, and K.M. Roy, Accountant Member, who concluded that the assessing officer's addition was based on assumptions and lacked any direct incriminating evidence linking the assessee to the alleged modus operandi.

ITAT Rules in Favor of Rural Co-op Society: Deduction Under Section 80P Valid for Nominal Members, Overturns CIT(A) Order Rajura NagariSahakari Pat Sanstha vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1257

In a significant relief for rural cooperative credit societies, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur Bench has ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even in respect of income attributable to nominal members.

The Tribunal, presided over by V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, concluded that the deduction under Section 80P as claimed by Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit was valid. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed that the deduction be allowed in full.

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal, Upholds Deletion of ₹5.2 Crore Addition Under Section 41(1) Due to Lack of Cessation of Liability Evidence Income TaxOfficer vs N. Kumar Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1258

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue and affirmed the deletion of ₹5.2 crore added under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of N. Kumar Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove cessation of liability or any benefit arising to the assessee during the relevant financial year.

The Bench comprising Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, and Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Member, took note of multiple case law references cited by the assessee, including CIT v. Shivali Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013), CIT v. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2013), and CIT v. Speedways Tyre Ltd. (2014), which supported the view that mere passage of time or absence of transactions in a particular year does not automatically trigger cessation under Section 41(1).

ITAT Grants School Principal Fresh Hearing in 3.65 Crore Tax Case, Cites Procedural Lapses GaneshMahadeorao Thaware vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1259

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has set aside an appeal order and directed a fresh hearing for a school principal accused of failing to disclose cash deposits worth ₹3.65 crore during the 2014–15 assessment year. The tribunal highlighted procedural lapses in the reassessment process and granted the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member), presiding over the case, ordered the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter, including the validity of the reassessment and the merits of Thaware’s claims. The tribunal also instructed Thaware to cooperate with the proceedings and submit all required documents promptly.

ITAT Grants Relief to NGO: Technical Filing Error Won't Block 80G Tax Benefits Gayatri GramVikas Sanstha vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1260

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, ruled that a technical error in filing an application for tax exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not deny the NGO its rightful benefits. The tribunal emphasized that such inadvertent mistakes should not override the substantive merits of the case.

The tribunal directed the trust to file a fresh application under the correct clause, Section 80G(5)(iv)(B), and instructed the CIT(E) to process it without being influenced by the earlier rejection. The ITAT’s order made it clear that procedural lapses should not hinder access to tax benefits if the entity meets the substantive requirements of the law.

Relief for UCIL: ITAT Finds No Penalty Warranted u/s 270A for Missed CSR Disallowance Due to Accountant’s Error D.C.I.T vs Uranium Corporation of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1261

The Ranchi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) finds no penalty warranted under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act,1961, for missed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disallowance due to accountant’s error, granting relief to Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL).

The two member bench comprising George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the company was a public sector undertaking that regularly filed returns and followed government rules. It noted that the company had incurred losses during the year but still paid tax under Section 115JB of the Act.

Real Estate Firm Backs Down: ITAT Formally Dismisses Uncontested Tax Appeal Harmony Homesvs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1262

The case arose from Harmony Homes’ challenge to the order dated March 20, 2024. However, at the hearing held on February 24, 2025, the company, represented by its authorised representative Mahavir Atal, declared it was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. In response, the Department, represented by Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, raised no objection to the withdrawal.

Taking note of the submission, the Tribunal bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) passed a concise order dismissing the appeal as “not pressed”.

ITAT Grants Liquor Shop Owner Second Chance, Cites Natural Justice in Ex-Parte Case Hameeda ArifLalani vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1263

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has given the owner of Uday Country Liquor Shop in Yavatmal district, a fresh opportunity to present her case after her appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.

V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member), after hearing both sides and examining the records, observed that although the appellate authority had issued several notices, the order was ultimately passed ex-parte without hearing the taxpayer.

ITAT Upholds Co-op Society’s Tax Exemption, Cites ‘Operational Funds’ to Reject Revenue’s Appeal on Interest Income Income TaxOfficer vs Maharashtra Urban Co–operative CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1264

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and upheld the tax exemption granted to a Co-operative Credit Society under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal’s order rules that the society’s interest income from deposits qualifies for deduction as it arises from operational funds maintained for business purposes.

Two Member Bench composed of V.Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) , concluded that the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was rightly granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal expressly stated that the interest income from deposits with co-operative banks and from nominal members is assessable as business income and not as income from other sources.

Non-Compliance with Fresh Registration Requirement Following J&K Reorganisation: ITAT Rejects S. 12A Registration MataBhuvaneshori Asthapan vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1265

The Amritsar Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has refused to grant registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ( CIT(E) ) observing that the assessee society failed to furnish a fresh registration certificate as mandated after the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory.

The Bench comprising Udayan Das Gupta (Judicial Member) and Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) observed that since the re-registration certificate is pending the provisions of Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 cannot be complied with, without which the application for registration under the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be proceeded with.

Taxpayer Wins Remand Despite Lapses: ITAT Orders New Hearing on ₹34 Lakh Unexplained Credit Kiran AnilGothi vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1266

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an ex-parte appellate order and directed a fresh hearing in the case of the appellant, who faced an addition of ₹34,31,971 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018–19. The Tribunal’s decision comes after both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously dismissed the taxpayer’s explanations due to lack of documentary evidence.

After hearing both sides, V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member ) noted that while the taxpayer had failed to appear and provide evidence at earlier stages, the appellate order was passed ex-parte. Citing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer should be given one more chance to present the case before the CIT(A). The ITAT set aside the earlier order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided and that the taxpayer should avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Retrospective Amendment Inapplicable: ITAT Allows ₹2.32 Lakh Deduction for Trust’s Accumulated Fund Utilisation ShriKrishnanagar Vaishnvsamaj vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1267

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) and deleted the adjustment made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), held that the retrospective amendment to Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was inapplicable.

The Tribunal ruled that legal provisions should be interpreted with practicality and reasonableness by citing the doctrine of impossibility. It also rules that the assessee utilized the funds within the originally stipulated period and therefore the CPC’s adjustment was incorrect.

Unexplained Cash Credits Taxable Despite Rejected Books: ITAT Upholds ₹6.58 Crore Addition

M/s. SahyogConstruction A-9 vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1268

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 6.58 crore as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and ruled that such additions are permissible even when the assessee’s books of accounts are rejected. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of Rs. 6,58,43,000 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and held that additions for unexplained credits are valid even when the books of accounts are rejected.

The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif, which clarified that additions for unexplained credits from undisclosed sources are permissible even when books are rejected, as they do not constitute double taxation.

Common Area Maintenance Charges Not Taxable as Rental Income: ITAT Deletes ₹17.08 Lakh Addition

Lysa TradingLLP vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1269

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an addition of Rs. 17,08,908 made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) and held that the recovery of Common Area Maintenance Charges ( CAMC ) by assessee from its tenant is not taxable as rental income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), observed that the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee’s explanation due to a misunderstanding that the CAM charges were paid to SEPL.

Accountant Not Informed About Income Tax Notice: ITAT Restores 12AB and 80G Registration Matter with 10k Costs Shri Ram BhaktMandal Trust vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1270

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] for de-novo consideration with a cost of Rs. 5,000 for each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000, to be paid to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

The two-member bench comprising SiddharthaNautiyal (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) observed that the trust’s non-compliance was evident but deemed it appropriate to provide another opportunity.

₹90 Lakh Received for Transferring Rights in Land without Registered Title Taxable as Income from Other Sources: ITAT HirenRameshbhai vs The Dy. CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1272

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that ₹90,00,000 received by the assessee for transferring rights over a land without a registered title deed is taxable as income from other sources and it cannot be termed as long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) noted that the assessee has not submitted any details in the form of the settlement agreement or the deed of relinquishing of right in the property either before the AO or before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT (A) ). Even the payment proof has not been submitted.

Relief for Aditya Birla: ITAT Rules Disallowance u/s 40(a) Cannot Be Retaxed if Provision Reversed in Subsequent Year Aditya BirlaSun Life AMC Ltd. vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1273

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that disallowance under Section 40(a) for earlier years cannot be added back again when the entire provision has been reversed in a subsequent year to prevent double taxation.

The two-member bench comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) observed that since the entire provision had already been offered to tax when reversed, taxing the disallowed portion again would lead to double taxation.

Taxpayer Can Raise Additional Claims Before Appellate Authorities: ITAT Allows ₹4.90 Cr ESOP claim Arvind Limitedvs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1274

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a deduction of Rs. 4,90,35,650 for Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) expenses, including an additional claim of Rs. 1,77,40,250 not originally made in the return of income, held that taxpayers can raise additional claims before appellate authorities.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R.Kumar (Vice-President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed that while Goetze restricts the AO from allowing claims outside revised returns, it does not limit appellate authorities powers.

ITAT Deletes ₹52.91 Lakh Unexplained Investment Addition on Land Purchase Due to Unreliable Draft MOU Evidence KanubhaiDhulabhai Patel vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1275

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition of Rs. 52,91,053 made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) as unexplained investment under Section 69 and ruled that the evidence based on a draft Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) found during survey was unreliable and could not form the basis for such addition.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice-President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) observed that the documents were not finalized, contained blanks in clauses, and lacked evidence of actual payments from the buyer’s or seller’s accounts.

Unexplained 33- Fold Share Price Increase: ITAT Upholds ₹80.17 Lakh Bogus LTCG Addition u/s 68 Suresh ChandraSadh vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1276

The Agra Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the Assessing Officer’s (AO) addition of Rs. 80,17,339 as bogus long-term capital gain (LTCG) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing Unexplained fold share price increase.Share Capital and Premium from NRI: ITAT Upholds Deletion of Addition u/s 68 as it Received through Proper Channels DCIT vs M/s.Bits N Bytes Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1211

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the deletion of addition under Section 68 of IncomeTax Act,1961,on share premium received from non-resident investors by the assessee, a company engaged in vehicle tracking and related services, citing proven identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investment.

The two member bench comprising C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) and M.Balaganesh (Accountant Member) found that the assessee had received share capital and premium from the same non-resident investors who had invested in earlier years. In those years, similar additions made by the AO were already deleted by the CIT(A).

ITAT Allows 80JJAA Deduction Despite Delay in Filing Form 10DA, Terms It Procedural AnalytixBusiness Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1212

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) allowed the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA of Income Tax Act,1961, despite a 29-day delay in filing Form 10DA, treating the delay as procedural.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of the ₹92.60 lakh deduction under Section 80JJAA. It noted that the delay in filing Form 10DA was only procedural and did not affect the assessee’s eligibility for the deduction. The appellate tribunal directed the CPC/AO to allow the claim.

Form 67 Filed in Time Under Amended R. 128(9): ITAT Allows ₹49.65 Lakh FTC Shri VishalNegi Hyderabad vs Dy. CIT Circle 8 (1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1213

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claim of Rs. 49,65,491 and set aside the the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s order, as Form 67 was filed within the timeline prescribed under the amended Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the AO to allow the FTC of Rs. 49,65,491 as claimed in the return, considering the Form 67 filed on 15/12/2022, which provided details of the income and taxes paid abroad. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

ITAT condones 234-day delay in filing Income Tax Appeal due to Missed Email Communication because of Accountant's resignation Aditya ProhousePrivate vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1214

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned the 234 days delay in filing the income tax appeal due to the accountant's resignation. It was found that the former accountant’s email was used for communications for which the assessee missed crucial information, leading to an ex parte appellate order.

The two-member bench, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member )examined the records and noted that the CIT(A) had passed the ex-parte order due to the delay in responding.

Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) allowable to Co-Op Society on Interest Income from co-op banks: ITAT rules in Favour of Bangalore Credit Co- operative Society ITO vs M/s.Bangalore Credit Co-operative CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1215

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Bangalore Credit Cooperative Society is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements.

A two member bench of Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements.

Selecting Wrong Income Tax Section Code/Clause would Not Disentitle Appellant to Rightful Claim: ITAT directs de novo Hearing SocialNetworking Forum vs CIT (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1216

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Selection of the wrong clause by the appellant cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings initiated after the filing of the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not disentitle the applicant to its rightful claim.

The bench, comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member), noted that the denial of the 80G application was based on a hyper-technical ground that the wrongful selection of the section code in Form 10AB.

CIT(A) Ignores Reply & Computation Showing Income Variation: ITAT Remands for Denovo Adjudication Mehi PowerTransformers vs DCIT-4(1) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1217

The Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling set aside an order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) and remanded the matter for denovo adjudication as CIT(A) had not considered the reply and the computation sheet showed a variation in the assessed income.

The bench held that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded on a denovo basis with a direction to the CIT(A) to pass a well reasoned order on merits after giving full and complete opportunity to the assessee.

‘Detailed Enquiry and Proper Application of Mind by AO While Allowing Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)’: ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Revision Order Pune ZilhaMadhyawarti Sahakari vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1218

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-3, Pune, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by noting that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a detailed enquiry and applied his mind properly while allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

The ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order and restored the AO’s original assessment dated 02.12.2022. The bench comprising Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee’s appeal.

ITAT Remands Case After Assessee Submits Cash Summaries, Audit Report, and Valuation Documents for Reconsideration Tanveer Alam vs Income Tax officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1219

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after the assessee submitted additional documents, including cash summaries, audited accounts, and a valuer’s report, to substantiate his claims regarding unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.

The ITAT, comprising Pradip Kumar Chaoubey (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

Co-op Bank Fails to Prove Identity and Creditworthiness of Depositors: ITAT upholds S. 68 addition and dismisses claim u/s 80P(2)(i)(a) PeeroorkadaService Co-op. Bank Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1220

The Cochin bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by Peeroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and upheld the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and rejected the bank’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act by noting that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of depositors whose cash credits were brought to tax.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the Section 68 addition, rejecting the bank’s argument that maintaining customer secrecy prevented it from disclosing depositor details. The Tribunal noted that banking regulations mandate Know Your Customer (KYC) records, and the bank’s failure to provide such details justified the AO’s action. The ITAT dismissed the bank’s claim that the addition under Section 68 should qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a), noting that the bank had not proven the deposits originated from disclosed business income.

ITAT Sets Aside Best Judgment Assessment u/s 144, Orders Fresh Hearing Noting Prior Grant of S.11 Exemption Weaker Sectionand Tribal Rehabilitation Charitable Trust vs The ACIT (Exemptions) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1221

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside a best judgment assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee, noting the prior grant of exemption under Section 11 to the Trust for the previous assessment year.

The bench observed that the assessment was not completed on best judgment basis under 144 of the Act by denying exemption under 11 of the Act. The bench noted that for the previous assessment year, 2017-18, a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was carried out, giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Dismisses Rs. 6.80 Cr Addition u/s 69A as Finds Transactions Duly Recorded and Explained by Assessee Income TaxOfficer vs Ramanbhai Jagabhai Bharwad CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1222

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of a Rs. 6.80 crore addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by noting that the assessee had sufficiently explained the transactions, which were duly recorded in his books of account, and the Department failed to disprove the evidence provided.

The bench accepted the assessee’s explanation that it was a repayment of an advance, supported by ledger entries, confirmations, and the lender’s income tax returns. The Tribunal observed that refunds of advances cannot be taxed as income under Section 68 or 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Business Receipts Is Substantiated Source of Cash Deposit: ITAT overturns ₹5.01 Lakh Addition TekchandHarilal vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1223

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has overturned the addition of Rs. 5,01,500 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ruled that the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period were substantiated as business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits as business receipts, and the AO was not justified in treating them as unexplained money under Section 69A. It directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5,01,500. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Prior Cash Withdrawals For Medical Treatment: ITAT Deletes ₹29.24 Lakh Cash Deposit Addition SureshSurindersing Yadav vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1224

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Rs. 29,24,571, which was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member), observed that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 67,91,000 from DCB Bank accounts, which exceeded the cash deposits of Rs. 59,67,000.

Delay in Filing Income Tax Appeal Due to Personal Problems: ITAT Condones 99 Days Delay Subrat Tarai vsITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1225

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] and condoned a 99-day delay in filing appeals for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 to 2014-15 and directed that the appeal for AY 2017-18 be reconsidered after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The bench set aside the CIT(A)’s orders and remanded all appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate them on merits after providing the assessee a fair opportunity to make submissions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

Interest From Land Acquisition Cannot Be Taxed Under Income from other Sources: ITAT Sh. SurenderKumar vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1226

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the interest component of enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not taxable as "income from other sources" under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal held that Interest From Land Acquisition Cannot Be Taxed Under Income from other Sources from the binding precedent. The CIT(A)’s order was set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ITAT Quashes Assessment for Lack of Jurisdiction: "Reason to Believe" Framed by Non-Jurisdictional AO Held Invalid Smt.TasleemBano vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1227

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed an assessment order for the financial year 2011-12, holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as it was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO).

The ITAT condoned a 558-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting Bano’s plea that as a homemaker with limited education, she was unaware of the online notices, which were never physically served. Her husband, an NRI residing in Italy, discovered the proceedings only upon visiting India in January 2025, prompting immediate action.

ITAT Deletes Rs. 90.70 Crore Adjustment Made u/s 11(3), Holds Amendment Prospective and Utilization Within Permissible Timeframe YashwantraoChavan Maharashtra vs CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1228

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside an adjustment of Rs. 90.70 crore made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by noting that the amendment to Section 11(3), which reduced the utilization period for accumulated funds from five years plus one additional year to just five years, is prospective and not applicable to accumulations made before the assessment year 2023-24.

The Tribunal noted that since YCMOU had utilized the funds within the permissible six-year window, the adjustment by the CPC was unjustified. It directed the deletion of the Rs. 90.70 crore adjustment and allowed the university's appeal.

Deduction on CSR Donations u/s 80G: ITAT Quashes Revision as AO Verifies Donations to Eligible Institutions

Dalal And Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1229

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashes the revision order passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act,1961, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had verified the donations made by the assessee to eligible institutions and allowed deduction under Section 80G, even though the donations were made from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds.

The bench held that while CSR expenses are not allowable under section 37(1), there is no bar on claiming deduction under section 80G if the donations meet the required conditions. In this case, the assessee had submitted receipts from eligible institutions.

Unexplained Cash Credit on ₹31.15 Lakh Loan Repayment: ITAT Upholds Deletion Confirming Genuine Repayment Through Banking Channels

DCIT vs M/s New Charan Kanwal Finance company Pvt. ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1230

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the addition of ₹31.15 lakh as unexplained cash credit, upholding the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] and confirming genuine repayment through banking channels.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) heard the parties and reviewed the order. It found that the company had given an unsecured loan of ₹31,15,000 to its group company in the financial year 2019-20.

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 vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1231

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 ITAT set aside the matter to the AO with directions to give the assessee another chance to explain the deposits and submit any supporting evidence. The assessee was told to cooperate, or the assessment would be completed based on available records.

CIT(A)’s Deletion of ₹2.32 Cr Addition u/s 68 Based on Evidence Admitted in Violation of Rule 46A: ITAT Sets Aside Order and Remands to AO

DCIT vs Ajit Singh Om Parkash Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1232

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)]’s order deleting an addition of ₹2.32 crore under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, noting that the relief was granted based on additional evidence admitted in violation of Rule 46A.

The appellate tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order on this issue and sent the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give proper opportunity to both sides, and the assessee was allowed to submit all relevant evidence during the reassessment.

Rejection of Registration Application for Wrong Section Code: ITAT Allows Revised Form 10D Filing Before CIT(E)

Senate of Serampore College vs CIT(Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1233

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allows revised Form 10D filing before Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption)[CIT(E)], after rejecting the initial registration application for wrong section code.

The two member bench Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) noted that the CIT(E) had directed the assessee to file a fresh Form 10D with the correct section code. The assessee submitted that the e-filing portal only allowed selection of Section 10(23C)(vi) and no other option. An affidavit was also filed in support of this claim.

ITAT Quashes Reassessment Initiated on Mere Suspicion of Money Laundering Without Concrete Evidence

Amandeep Singh vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1234

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee, holding that they were based solely on suspicion of money laundering and lacked any concrete evidence.

The appellate tribunal noted that the reopening reasons related to companies, but the assessee was an individual with a proprietorship, and the AO did not explain how the transactions affected the proprietorship. The AO reopened the case without proper material, essentially conducting a roving inquiry.

Reference to DVO can be Made only During Pendency of Income Tax Assessment or Reassessment Proceedings: ITAT

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Adish Estates Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1235

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) deleting the addition of ₹2,28,41,677, as the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) was made before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) held that there was no merit in the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal finding no case for interference with the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO.

Non-Service of Notice Through Opted Physical Mode: ITAT Restores Matter to CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication

Alok Buildtech Private Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1236

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after observing that notices were not served through the assessee’s opted physical mode.

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after observing that notices were not served through the assessee’s opted physical mode.

Disallowance u/s 14A Inapplicable due to Absence of Exempt Income: ITAT

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) vs Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1237

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was inapplicable due to the absence of exempt income and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

The tribunal heard both sides and reviewed the CIT(A)'s order. The bench, by relying on the CIT)A)’s findings concluded that as the assessee had not earned any exempt income on its investments in the current year and thus no disallowance under Section 14A should be made.

Inadequate Opportunity of Hearing in Alleged Form 10AB Delayed Filing: ITAT Restores Matter for Reconsideration

Tewhima Permaculture vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1238

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] with a direction to reconsider the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The two-member bench, comprising Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member) and Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain its case, particularly since the application was filed before the six-month period from the expiry of the provisional registration.

Partial Relief Granted to Palmshore Hotels: ITAT Directs Reassessment on Business Income Classification and Section 43B Disallowance

Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1239

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted partial relief to Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. by directing a reassessment of key issues, including the classification of licence fee income and disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT bench comprising George George K. (Vice President) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the classification of the licence fee income, verify the double inclusion of turnover, reassess the unpaid loan liability, and scrutinise the Section 43B disallowance, ensuring the company is given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

Rejection of Income Tax Appeal citing Time Barred by One Day: ITAT sets aside NFAC’s Dismissal on Hyper-Technical Ground

Ecoslag Cements And Additives Pvt. Ltd. vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1240

The Panaji Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the dismissal of an income tax appeal by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which was incorrectly held to be time-barred by one day, despite having been filed within the statutory limit.

The Tribunal comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and G. D. Padmahshali (Accountant Member), ordered that an appellate forum created by statute is meant to address the dispute, not to accelerate it to a higher forum perfunctorily.

Major Win for Assessees: ITAT Confirms Deductibility of CSR Donations u/s 80G of Income Tax Act

ACG Pam Pharma Technologies vs PCIT-4 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1241

The Mumbai bench of Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has confirmed that donations made as part of mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013 are indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) in its final order quashed the PCIT's revisionary directive and reinstated the original assessment order thereby upholding the assessee's claim for deduction for its CSR donation.

Serious Illness Prevented Assessee from filing Timely Income Tax Appeal: ITAT Condones Delay in Bank Cash Deposit Dispute

Shri Anitha Kumari Mehta vs DC/AC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1242

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a 99 day delay in filing an appeal by a fuel retailer in a case involving unexplained cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account. The condonation was accepted as the assessee was having a serious illness, which was a valid cause for the delay and beyond the assessee’s control.

The Tribunal, consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to substantiate her claim. The matter was therefore restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with directions to conduct fresh proceedings after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Relief for Rolls Royce: ITAT Quashes Time-Barred Assessment Order Passed Beyond S.144C(13) Deadline

Rolls Royce India Pvt vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1243

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Rolls Royce India Pvt. by quashing the final assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act,1961 holding it to be time-barred and void ab initio.

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Rolls Royce India Pvt. by quashing the final assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act,1961 holding it to be time-barred and void ab initio.

ITAT condones Institute of Nephrourology’s Income Tax Appeals Filed After 5-Year Delay, quashes CIT(A)-NFAC Order for Ignoring COVID-19 Impact

Institute of Nephrourology vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1244

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the dismissal of appeals filed by the Institute of Nephrourology after finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) erred in refusing to condone a delay of five years and nineteen days in filing the appeals, without recognizing the bona fide reasons such as dependence on initial professional advice and severe disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and also without considering the merits involved.

The ITAT bench, consisting of Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) disagreed with CIT(A), observing that the length of delay is not a material aspect to decide whether the delay is for sufficient cause or not.

ITAT Criticizes CIT(A) for Rejecting Additional Evidence, Sets Aside Order on Ex Parte Assessment

Mayank Raghuvanshi vs Income Tax Officer-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1245

The Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate tribunal (ITAT), in a recent decision set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) after finding that the CIT(A) had improperly rejected additional evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings related to an ex parte assessment.

The bench comprising B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member) and Paresh M Joshi (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(A) acting in quasi-judicial capacity was required to adjudicate the first appeal on meritorious grounds especially as the assessment order was admittedly passed under section 144 of the Act.

Cash Deposit Arising Out of Agriculture Income and Past Savings: ITAT Deletes ₹7 Lakh Addition of Senior Citizen

Dilip Sampatrao Yewale vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1246

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and deleted an addition of Rs. 7,38,500 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits as agricultural income and bank withdrawals.

Quantum Of Expenditure Not Relevant for Purposes of S.12AB Registration: ITAT Holds Genuineness of Object, directs to Grant Registration

Dhwani Shristi Foundation vs CIT (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1247

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that quantum of expenditure was not relevant for granting registration under section 12AB and holds genuineness of object for granting registration.

The two-member bench comprising Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(E)’s rejection was primarily based on the trust’s low expenditure, despite the assessee submitting all necessary documents.

Chennai ITAT Applies ‘Surviving Period’ Rule for First Time, quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notice

Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1248

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed a reassessment notice holding that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notices under the new regime beyond the “surviving period” prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench comprising George George K (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal had held that reassessment notices under the new regime must be issued within the “surviving period” available under law, which is computed conservatively from the date of the assessee’s reply.

Ex-Parte Income Tax Assessment Against Continuously Absent Assessee: ITAT Restores Case for Meritorious Adjudication

Indra Devi vs AC/DC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1249

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has restored an ex-parte income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2013–14, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the matter afresh on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), after hearing the representative of the Revenue Department observed that the assessee had failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing by the Assessing Officer.

Cash Deposit From Prior Withdrawals a Substantiated Source: ITAT Partly Grants Relief of Rs.10.50 Lakh for Deposit During Demonetization

Haralur Narayana Reddy Nagaraj vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1250

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief of Rs.10,50,000 by accepting that cash deposits during the demonetization period were sourced from prior withdrawals.

The single-member bench comprising Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice President, observed that the AO had obtained the bank statements directly from Karnataka Bank and used them to make the addition.

Honda Motorcycle India’s ₹10.84 Crore FTS Payment to Asian Honda: ITAT Remands to Determine Taxability & P.E. under India–Thailand DTAA Due to Missing Documents

Asian Honda Motor Co vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1251

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal of Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and remanded the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), after noticing that relevant documents to determine the taxability of ₹10.84 crore in Fees for Technical Service (FTS) receipts were not placed on record.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member) found that the issue could not be conclusively determined in the absence of the relevant service agreements.

AO Not Required to Record Categorical Finding For Income Escapement: ITAT Upholds Reassessment Despite Lack of Cross Examination

The DCIT vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1252

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) stating that a categorical finding of income escapement is not necessary for reopening an assessment.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the AO received credible information from the investigation unit, indicating that some expenses debited by the assessee could be doubtful.

NHAI Grant Not Deductible from Project Cost: ITAT Upholds Deletion of ₹43.43 Crore Depreciation Disallowance

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Madhucon Agra Expressway Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1253

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 43.43 crore as depreciation and confirmed that the Rs. 38.40 crore grant received from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) cannot be reduced from the project cost for computing depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice-President) and Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), observed that the grant was provided as cash support in the nature of shareholder’s funds to enhance the project’s commercial viability and facilitate additional financing.

Assessee's Failure to Submit Evidence Leads ITAT to Remand Case for Fresh Hearing

Raju V. Mahakalkar vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1254

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur Bench has remanded the case of the appellant back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh hearing, after the assessee repeatedly failed to submit evidence or appear before the tax authorities.

residing over the matter, V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, held that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case and substantiate his claims before the appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for all three assessment years and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal also cautioned that the assessee should not seek adjournments without justified reasons.

ITAT Quashes Penalties Citing Revised Audit Report, Rules No Intentional Misreporting by Cooperative Society

Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti vs Income Tax Officer Ward–2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1255

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has quashed penalties totaling ₹7,78,502 imposed on a cooperative society, under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal ruled that the society had not intentionally misreported income and accepted its revised audit report as valid grounds to delete the penalty.

The bench, comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member ) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member), allowed both appeals filed by the cooperative society, bringing relief to the taxpayer. The order underscores that penalties cannot be sustained without evidence of wilful default or malintent, especially when errors are rectified through proper documentation.

ITAT Upholds Deletion of Bogus LTCG Addition, Rules No Evidence of Tax Evasion in Share Transactions

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(1) vs Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1256

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete a ₹5.60 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Nagpur-based assessee Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani. The assessing officer had treated long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions as bogus, alleging accommodation entries, but the tribunal found no concrete evidence to justify the tax evasion claim.

The order was pronounced by the Bench comprising V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, and K.M. Roy, Accountant Member, who concluded that the assessing officer's addition was based on assumptions and lacked any direct incriminating evidence linking the assessee to the alleged modus operandi.

ITAT Rules in Favor of Rural Co-op Society: Deduction Under Section 80P Valid for Nominal Members, Overturns CIT(A) Order

Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1257

In a significant relief for rural cooperative credit societies, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur Bench has ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even in respect of income attributable to nominal members.

The Tribunal, presided over by V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, concluded that the deduction under Section 80P as claimed by Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit was valid. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed that the deduction be allowed in full.

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal, Upholds Deletion of ₹5.2 Crore Addition Under Section 41(1) Due to Lack of Cessation of Liability Evidence

Income Tax Officer vs N. Kumar Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1258

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue and affirmed the deletion of ₹5.2 crore added under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of N. Kumar Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove cessation of liability or any benefit arising to the assessee during the relevant financial year.

The Bench comprising Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, and Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Member, took note of multiple case law references cited by the assessee, including CIT v. Shivali Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013), CIT v. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2013), and CIT v. Speedways Tyre Ltd. (2014), which supported the view that mere passage of time or absence of transactions in a particular year does not automatically trigger cessation under Section 41(1).

ITAT Grants School Principal Fresh Hearing in 3.65 Crore Tax Case, Cites Procedural Lapses

Ganesh Mahadeorao Thaware vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1259

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has set aside an appeal order and directed a fresh hearing for a school principal accused of failing to disclose cash deposits worth ₹3.65 crore during the 2014–15 assessment year. The tribunal highlighted procedural lapses in the reassessment process and granted the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member), presiding over the case, ordered the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter, including the validity of the reassessment and the merits of Thaware’s claims. The tribunal also instructed Thaware to cooperate with the proceedings and submit all required documents promptly.

ITAT Grants Relief to NGO: Technical Filing Error Won't Block 80G Tax Benefits

Gayatri Gram Vikas Sanstha vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1260

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, ruled that a technical error in filing an application for tax exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not deny the NGO its rightful benefits. The tribunal emphasized that such inadvertent mistakes should not override the substantive merits of the case.

The tribunal directed the trust to file a fresh application under the correct clause, Section 80G(5)(iv)(B), and instructed the CIT(E) to process it without being influenced by the earlier rejection. The ITAT’s order made it clear that procedural lapses should not hinder access to tax benefits if the entity meets the substantive requirements of the law.

Relief for UCIL: ITAT Finds No Penalty Warranted u/s 270A for Missed CSR Disallowance Due to Accountant’s Error

D.C.I.T vs Uranium Corporation of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1261

The Ranchi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) finds no penalty warranted under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act,1961, for missed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disallowance due to accountant’s error, granting relief to Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL).

The two member bench comprising George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the company was a public sector undertaking that regularly filed returns and followed government rules. It noted that the company had incurred losses during the year but still paid tax under Section 115JB of the Act.

Real Estate Firm Backs Down: ITAT Formally Dismisses Uncontested Tax Appeal

Harmony Homes vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1262

The case arose from Harmony Homes’ challenge to the order dated March 20, 2024. However, at the hearing held on February 24, 2025, the company, represented by its authorised representative Mahavir Atal, declared it was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. In response, the Department, represented by Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, raised no objection to the withdrawal.

Taking note of the submission, the Tribunal bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) passed a concise order dismissing the appeal as “not pressed”.

ITAT Grants Liquor Shop Owner Second Chance, Cites Natural Justice in Ex-Parte Case

Hameeda Arif Lalani vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1263

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has given the owner of Uday Country Liquor Shop in Yavatmal district, a fresh opportunity to present her case after her appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.

V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member), after hearing both sides and examining the records, observed that although the appellate authority had issued several notices, the order was ultimately passed ex-parte without hearing the taxpayer.

ITAT Upholds Co-op Society’s Tax Exemption, Cites ‘Operational Funds’ to Reject Revenue’s Appeal on Interest Income

Income Tax Officer vs Maharashtra Urban Co–operative CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1264

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and upheld the tax exemption granted to a Co-operative Credit Society under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal’s order rules that the society’s interest income from deposits qualifies for deduction as it arises from operational funds maintained for business purposes.

Two Member Bench composed of V.Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) , concluded that the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was rightly granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal expressly stated that the interest income from deposits with co-operative banks and from nominal members is assessable as business income and not as income from other sources.

Non-Compliance with Fresh Registration Requirement Following J&K Reorganisation: ITAT Rejects S. 12A Registration

Mata Bhuvaneshori Asthapan vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1265

The Amritsar Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has refused to grant registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ( CIT(E) ) observing that the assessee society failed to furnish a fresh registration certificate as mandated after the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory.

The Bench comprising Udayan Das Gupta (Judicial Member) and Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) observed that since the re-registration certificate is pending the provisions of Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 cannot be complied with, without which the application for registration under the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be proceeded with.

Taxpayer Wins Remand Despite Lapses: ITAT Orders New Hearing on ₹34 Lakh Unexplained Credit

Kiran Anil Gothi vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1266

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an ex-parte appellate order and directed a fresh hearing in the case of the appellant, who faced an addition of ₹34,31,971 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018–19. The Tribunal’s decision comes after both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously dismissed the taxpayer’s explanations due to lack of documentary evidence.

After hearing both sides, V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member ) noted that while the taxpayer had failed to appear and provide evidence at earlier stages, the appellate order was passed ex-parte. Citing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer should be given one more chance to present the case before the CIT(A). The ITAT set aside the earlier order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided and that the taxpayer should avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Retrospective Amendment Inapplicable: ITAT Allows ₹2.32 Lakh Deduction for Trust’s Accumulated Fund Utilisation

Shri Krishnanagar Vaishnvsamaj vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1267

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) and deleted the adjustment made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), held that the retrospective amendment to Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was inapplicable.

The Tribunal ruled that legal provisions should be interpreted with practicality and reasonableness by citing the doctrine of impossibility. It also rules that the assessee utilized the funds within the originally stipulated period and therefore the CPC’s adjustment was incorrect.

Unexplained Cash Credits Taxable Despite Rejected Books: ITAT Upholds ₹6.58 Crore Addition

M/s. Sahyog Construction A-9 vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1268

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 6.58 crore as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and ruled that such additions are permissible even when the assessee’s books of accounts are rejected. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of Rs. 6,58,43,000 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and held that additions for unexplained credits are valid even when the books of accounts are rejected.

The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif, which clarified that additions for unexplained credits from undisclosed sources are permissible even when books are rejected, as they do not constitute double taxation.

Common Area Maintenance Charges Not Taxable as Rental Income: ITAT Deletes ₹17.08 Lakh Addition

Lysa Trading LLP vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1269

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an addition of Rs. 17,08,908 made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) and held that the recovery of Common Area Maintenance Charges ( CAMC ) by assessee from its tenant is not taxable as rental income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), observed that the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee’s explanation due to a misunderstanding that the CAM charges were paid to SEPL.

Accountant Not Informed About Income Tax Notice: ITAT Restores 12AB and 80G Registration Matter with 10k Costs

Shri Ram Bhakt Mandal Trust vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1270

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] for de-novo consideration with a cost of Rs. 5,000 for each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000, to be paid to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

The two-member bench comprising SiddharthaNautiyal (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) observed that the trust’s non-compliance was evident but deemed it appropriate to provide another opportunity.

₹90 Lakh Received for Transferring Rights in Land without Registered Title Taxable as Income from Other Sources: ITAT

Hiren Rameshbhai vs The Dy. CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1272

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that ₹90,00,000 received by the assessee for transferring rights over a land without a registered title deed is taxable as income from other sources and it cannot be termed as long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) noted that the assessee has not submitted any details in the form of the settlement agreement or the deed of relinquishing of right in the property either before the AO or before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT (A) ). Even the payment proof has not been submitted.

Relief for Aditya Birla: ITAT Rules Disallowance u/s 40(a) Cannot Be Retaxed if Provision Reversed in Subsequent Year

Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Ltd. vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1273

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that disallowance under Section 40(a) for earlier years cannot be added back again when the entire provision has been reversed in a subsequent year to prevent double taxation.

The two-member bench comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) observed that since the entire provision had already been offered to tax when reversed, taxing the disallowed portion again would lead to double taxation.

Taxpayer Can Raise Additional Claims Before Appellate Authorities: ITAT Allows ₹4.90 Cr ESOP claim

Arvind Limited vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1274

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a deduction of Rs. 4,90,35,650 for Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) expenses, including an additional claim of Rs. 1,77,40,250 not originally made in the return of income, held that taxpayers can raise additional claims before appellate authorities.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R.Kumar (Vice-President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed that while Goetze restricts the AO from allowing claims outside revised returns, it does not limit appellate authorities powers.

ITAT Deletes ₹52.91 Lakh Unexplained Investment Addition on Land Purchase Due to Unreliable Draft MOU Evidence

Kanubhai Dhulabhai Patel vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1275

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition of Rs. 52,91,053 made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) as unexplained investment under Section 69 and ruled that the evidence based on a draft Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) found during survey was unreliable and could not form the basis for such addition.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice-President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) observed that the documents were not finalized, contained blanks in clauses, and lacked evidence of actual payments from the buyer’s or seller’s accounts.

Unexplained 33- Fold Share Price Increase: ITAT Upholds ₹80.17 Lakh Bogus LTCG Addition u/s 68

Suresh Chandra Sadh vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1276

Share Capital and Premium from NRI: ITAT Upholds Deletion of Addition u/s 68 as it Received through Proper Channels

DCIT vs M/s. Bits N Bytes Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1211

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the deletion of addition under Section 68 of IncomeTax Act,1961,on share premium received from non-resident investors by the assessee, a company engaged in vehicle tracking and related services, citing proven identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investment.

The two member bench comprising C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) and M.Balaganesh (Accountant Member) found that the assessee had received share capital and premium from the same non-resident investors who had invested in earlier years. In those years, similar additions made by the AO were already deleted by the CIT(A).

ITAT Allows 80JJAA Deduction Despite Delay in Filing Form 10DA, Terms It Procedural

Analytix Business Solution (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1212

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT) allowed the claim for deduction under Section 80JJAA of Income Tax Act,1961, despite a 29-day delay in filing Form 10DA, treating the delay as procedural.

The two member bench comprising T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) held that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of the ₹92.60 lakh deduction under Section 80JJAA. It noted that the delay in filing Form 10DA was only procedural and did not affect the assessee’s eligibility for the deduction. The appellate tribunal directed the CPC/AO to allow the claim.

Form 67 Filed in Time Under Amended R. 128(9): ITAT Allows ₹49.65 Lakh FTC

Shri Vishal Negi Hyderabad vs Dy. CIT Circle 8 (1) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1213

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) claim of Rs. 49,65,491 and set aside the the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s order, as Form 67 was filed within the timeline prescribed under the amended Rule 128(9) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the AO to allow the FTC of Rs. 49,65,491 as claimed in the return, considering the Form 67 filed on 15/12/2022, which provided details of the income and taxes paid abroad. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

ITAT condones 234-day delay in filing Income Tax Appeal due to Missed Email Communication because of Accountant's resignation

Aditya Prohouse Private vs The ITO CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1214

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned the 234 days delay in filing the income tax appeal due to the accountant's resignation. It was found that the former accountant’s email was used for communications for which the assessee missed crucial information, leading to an ex parte appellate order.

The two-member bench, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member )examined the records and noted that the CIT(A) had passed the ex-parte order due to the delay in responding.

Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) allowable to Co-Op Society on Interest Income from co-op banks: ITAT rules in Favour of Bangalore Credit Co- operative Society

ITO vs M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1215

The Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Bangalore Credit Cooperative Society is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements.

A two member bench of Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri Keshav Dubey, Judicial Member held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest income earned from deposits made in compliance with statutory requirements.

Selecting Wrong Income Tax Section Code/Clause would Not Disentitle Appellant to Rightful Claim: ITAT directs de novo Hearing

Social Networking Forum vs CIT (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1216

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that the Selection of the wrong clause by the appellant cannot be treated as fatal to the proceedings initiated after the filing of the application for approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not disentitle the applicant to its rightful claim.

The bench, comprising Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member), noted that the denial of the 80G application was based on a hyper-technical ground that the wrongful selection of the section code in Form 10AB.

CIT(A) Ignores Reply & Computation Showing Income Variation: ITAT Remands for Denovo Adjudication

Mehi Power Transformers vs DCIT-4(1) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1217

The Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling set aside an order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) and remanded the matter for denovo adjudication as CIT(A) had not considered the reply and the computation sheet showed a variation in the assessed income.

The bench held that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded on a denovo basis with a direction to the CIT(A) to pass a well reasoned order on merits after giving full and complete opportunity to the assessee.

‘Detailed Enquiry and Proper Application of Mind by AO While Allowing Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)’: ITAT Quashes PCIT’s Revision Order

Pune Zilha Madhyawarti Sahakari vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1218

The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)-3, Pune, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by noting that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a detailed enquiry and applied his mind properly while allowing the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.

The ITAT set aside the PCIT’s revision order and restored the AO’s original assessment dated 02.12.2022. The bench comprising Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) allowed the assessee’s appeal.

ITAT Remands Case After Assessee Submits Cash Summaries, Audit Report, and Valuation Documents for Reconsideration

Tanveer Alam vs Income Tax officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1219

The Kolkata Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remanded a case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication after the assessee submitted additional documents, including cash summaries, audited accounts, and a valuer’s report, to substantiate his claims regarding unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.

The ITAT, comprising Pradip Kumar Chaoubey (Judicial Member) and Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member), allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

Co-op Bank Fails to Prove Identity and Creditworthiness of Depositors: ITAT upholds S. 68 addition and dismisses claim u/s 80P(2)(i)(a)

Peeroorkada Service Co-op. Bank Ltd vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1220

The Cochin bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals filed by Peeroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and upheld the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and rejected the bank’s claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a) of the Act by noting that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of depositors whose cash credits were brought to tax.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision on the Section 68 addition, rejecting the bank’s argument that maintaining customer secrecy prevented it from disclosing depositor details. The Tribunal noted that banking regulations mandate Know Your Customer (KYC) records, and the bank’s failure to provide such details justified the AO’s action. The ITAT dismissed the bank’s claim that the addition under Section 68 should qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(i)(a), noting that the bank had not proven the deposits originated from disclosed business income.

ITAT Sets Aside Best Judgment Assessment u/s 144, Orders Fresh Hearing Noting Prior Grant of S.11 Exemption

Weaker Section and Tribal Rehabilitation Charitable Trust vs The ACIT (Exemptions)

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1221

The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside a best judgment assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the assessee, noting the prior grant of exemption under Section 11 to the Trust for the previous assessment year.

The bench observed that the assessment was not completed on best judgment basis under 144 of the Act by denying exemption under 11 of the Act. The bench noted that for the previous assessment year, 2017-18, a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was carried out, giving the benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Dismisses Rs. 6.80 Cr Addition u/s 69A as Finds Transactions Duly Recorded and Explained by Assessee

Income Tax Officer vs Ramanbhai Jagabhai Bharwad CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1222

The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of a Rs. 6.80 crore addition made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by noting that the assessee had sufficiently explained the transactions, which were duly recorded in his books of account, and the Department failed to disprove the evidence provided.

The bench accepted the assessee’s explanation that it was a repayment of an advance, supported by ledger entries, confirmations, and the lender’s income tax returns. The Tribunal observed that refunds of advances cannot be taxed as income under Section 68 or 69A of the Income Tax Act.

Business Receipts Is Substantiated Source of Cash Deposit: ITAT overturns ₹5.01 Lakh Addition

Tekchand Harilal vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1223

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has overturned the addition of Rs. 5,01,500 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ruled that the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period were substantiated as business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposits as business receipts, and the AO was not justified in treating them as unexplained money under Section 69A. It directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 5,01,500. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Prior Cash Withdrawals For Medical Treatment: ITAT Deletes ₹29.24 Lakh Cash Deposit Addition

Suresh Surindersing Yadav vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1224

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has deleted the addition of Rs. 29,24,571, which was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member), observed that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 67,91,000 from DCB Bank accounts, which exceeded the cash deposits of Rs. 59,67,000.

Delay in Filing Income Tax Appeal Due to Personal Problems: ITAT Condones 99 Days Delay

Subrat Tarai vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1225

The Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)] and condoned a 99-day delay in filing appeals for Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13 to 2014-15 and directed that the appeal for AY 2017-18 be reconsidered after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The bench set aside the CIT(A)’s orders and remanded all appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate them on merits after providing the assessee a fair opportunity to make submissions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

Interest From Land Acquisition Cannot Be Taxed Under Income from other Sources: ITAT

Sh. Surender Kumar vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1226

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the interest component of enhanced compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not taxable as "income from other sources" under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal held that Interest From Land Acquisition Cannot Be Taxed Under Income from other Sources from the binding precedent. The CIT(A)’s order was set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

ITAT Quashes Assessment for Lack of Jurisdiction: "Reason to Believe" Framed by Non-Jurisdictional AO Held Invalid

Smt.Tasleem Bano vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1227

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed an assessment order for the financial year 2011-12, holding that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid as it was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO).

The ITAT condoned a 558-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting Bano’s plea that as a homemaker with limited education, she was unaware of the online notices, which were never physically served. Her husband, an NRI residing in Italy, discovered the proceedings only upon visiting India in January 2025, prompting immediate action.

ITAT Deletes Rs. 90.70 Crore Adjustment Made u/s 11(3), Holds Amendment Prospective and Utilization Within Permissible Timeframe

Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra vs CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1228

The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), set aside an adjustment of Rs. 90.70 crore made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by noting that the amendment to Section 11(3), which reduced the utilization period for accumulated funds from five years plus one additional year to just five years, is prospective and not applicable to accumulations made before the assessment year 2023-24.

The Tribunal noted that since YCMOU had utilized the funds within the permissible six-year window, the adjustment by the CPC was unjustified. It directed the deletion of the Rs. 90.70 crore adjustment and allowed the university's appeal.

Deduction on CSR Donations u/s 80G: ITAT Quashes Revision as AO Verifies Donations to Eligible Institutions

Dalal And Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1229

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashes the revision order passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act,1961, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had verified the donations made by the assessee to eligible institutions and allowed deduction under Section 80G, even though the donations were made from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds.

The bench held that while CSR expenses are not allowable under section 37(1), there is no bar on claiming deduction under section 80G if the donations meet the required conditions. In this case, the assessee had submitted receipts from eligible institutions.

Unexplained Cash Credit on ₹31.15 Lakh Loan Repayment: ITAT Upholds Deletion Confirming Genuine Repayment Through Banking Channels

DCIT vs M/s New Charan Kanwal Finance company Pvt. ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1230

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against the addition of ₹31.15 lakh as unexplained cash credit, upholding the deletion by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[CIT(A)] and confirming genuine repayment through banking channels.

The two member bench comprising Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) heard the parties and reviewed the order. It found that the company had given an unsecured loan of ₹31,15,000 to its group company in the financial year 2019-20.

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 vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1231

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 ITAT set aside the matter to the AO with directions to give the assessee another chance to explain the deposits and submit any supporting evidence. The assessee was told to cooperate, or the assessment would be completed based on available records.

CIT(A)’s Deletion of ₹2.32 Cr Addition u/s 68 Based on Evidence Admitted in Violation of Rule 46A: ITAT Sets Aside Order and Remands to AO

DCIT vs Ajit Singh Om Parkash Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1232

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) set aside the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)]’s order deleting an addition of ₹2.32 crore under Section 68 of Income Tax Act,1961 and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication, noting that the relief was granted based on additional evidence admitted in violation of Rule 46A.

The appellate tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order on this issue and sent the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to give proper opportunity to both sides, and the assessee was allowed to submit all relevant evidence during the reassessment.

Rejection of Registration Application for Wrong Section Code: ITAT Allows Revised Form 10D Filing Before CIT(E)

Senate of Serampore College vs CIT(Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1233

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allows revised Form 10D filing before Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption)[CIT(E)], after rejecting the initial registration application for wrong section code.

The two member bench Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) noted that the CIT(E) had directed the assessee to file a fresh Form 10D with the correct section code. The assessee submitted that the e-filing portal only allowed selection of Section 10(23C)(vi) and no other option. An affidavit was also filed in support of this claim.

ITAT Quashes Reassessment Initiated on Mere Suspicion of Money Laundering Without Concrete Evidence

Amandeep Singh vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1234

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee, holding that they were based solely on suspicion of money laundering and lacked any concrete evidence.

The appellate tribunal noted that the reopening reasons related to companies, but the assessee was an individual with a proprietorship, and the AO did not explain how the transactions affected the proprietorship. The AO reopened the case without proper material, essentially conducting a roving inquiry.

Reference to DVO can be Made only During Pendency of Income Tax Assessment or Reassessment Proceedings: ITAT

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Adish Estates Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1235

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) deleting the addition of ₹2,28,41,677, as the reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) was made before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The bench comprising Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) held that there was no merit in the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal finding no case for interference with the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO.

Non-Service of Notice Through Opted Physical Mode: ITAT Restores Matter to CIT(A) for Fresh Adjudication

Alok Buildtech Private Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1236

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after observing that notices were not served through the assessee’s opted physical mode.

The Raipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[CIT(A)] for fresh adjudication after observing that notices were not served through the assessee’s opted physical mode.

Disallowance u/s 14A Inapplicable due to Absence of Exempt Income: ITAT

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1) vs Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1237

The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was inapplicable due to the absence of exempt income and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.

The tribunal heard both sides and reviewed the CIT(A)'s order. The bench, by relying on the CIT)A)’s findings concluded that as the assessee had not earned any exempt income on its investments in the current year and thus no disallowance under Section 14A should be made.

Inadequate Opportunity of Hearing in Alleged Form 10AB Delayed Filing: ITAT Restores Matter for Reconsideration

Tewhima Permaculture vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1238

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] with a direction to reconsider the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The two-member bench, comprising Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member) and Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application without granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to explain its case, particularly since the application was filed before the six-month period from the expiry of the provisional registration.

Partial Relief Granted to Palmshore Hotels: ITAT Directs Reassessment on Business Income Classification and Section 43B Disallowance

Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1239

The Cochin Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) granted partial relief to Palmshore Hotels Pvt. Ltd. by directing a reassessment of key issues, including the classification of licence fee income and disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT bench comprising George George K. (Vice President) and Inturi Rama Rao (Accountant Member) restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the classification of the licence fee income, verify the double inclusion of turnover, reassess the unpaid loan liability, and scrutinise the Section 43B disallowance, ensuring the company is given a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

Rejection of Income Tax Appeal citing Time Barred by One Day: ITAT sets aside NFAC’s Dismissal on Hyper-Technical Ground

Ecoslag Cements And Additives Pvt. Ltd. vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1240

The Panaji Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the dismissal of an income tax appeal by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which was incorrectly held to be time-barred by one day, despite having been filed within the statutory limit.

The Tribunal comprising Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member) and G. D. Padmahshali (Accountant Member), ordered that an appellate forum created by statute is meant to address the dispute, not to accelerate it to a higher forum perfunctorily.

Major Win for Assessees: ITAT Confirms Deductibility of CSR Donations u/s 80G of Income Tax Act

ACG Pam Pharma Technologies vs PCIT-4 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1241

The Mumbai bench of Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has confirmed that donations made as part of mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013 are indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) in its final order quashed the PCIT's revisionary directive and reinstated the original assessment order thereby upholding the assessee's claim for deduction for its CSR donation.

Serious Illness Prevented Assessee from filing Timely Income Tax Appeal: ITAT Condones Delay in Bank Cash Deposit Dispute

Shri Anitha Kumari Mehta vs DC/AC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1242

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned a 99 day delay in filing an appeal by a fuel retailer in a case involving unexplained cash deposits in the assessee’s bank account. The condonation was accepted as the assessee was having a serious illness, which was a valid cause for the delay and beyond the assessee’s control.

The Tribunal, consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to substantiate her claim. The matter was therefore restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) with directions to conduct fresh proceedings after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Relief for Rolls Royce: ITAT Quashes Time-Barred Assessment Order Passed Beyond S.144C(13) Deadline

Rolls Royce India Pvt vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1243

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Rolls Royce India Pvt. by quashing the final assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act,1961 holding it to be time-barred and void ab initio.

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Rolls Royce India Pvt. by quashing the final assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act,1961 holding it to be time-barred and void ab initio.

ITAT condones Institute of Nephrourology’s Income Tax Appeals Filed After 5-Year Delay, quashes CIT(A)-NFAC Order for Ignoring COVID-19 Impact

Institute of Nephrourology vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1244

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the dismissal of appeals filed by the Institute of Nephrourology after finding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) erred in refusing to condone a delay of five years and nineteen days in filing the appeals, without recognizing the bona fide reasons such as dependence on initial professional advice and severe disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and also without considering the merits involved.

The ITAT bench, consisting of Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) disagreed with CIT(A), observing that the length of delay is not a material aspect to decide whether the delay is for sufficient cause or not.

ITAT Criticizes CIT(A) for Rejecting Additional Evidence, Sets Aside Order on Ex Parte Assessment

Mayank Raghuvanshi vs Income Tax Officer-1 CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1245

The Indore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate tribunal (ITAT), in a recent decision set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT(A) ) after finding that the CIT(A) had improperly rejected additional evidence submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings related to an ex parte assessment.

The bench comprising B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member) and Paresh M Joshi (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(A) acting in quasi-judicial capacity was required to adjudicate the first appeal on meritorious grounds especially as the assessment order was admittedly passed under section 144 of the Act.

Cash Deposit Arising Out of Agriculture Income and Past Savings: ITAT Deletes ₹7 Lakh Addition of Senior Citizen

Dilip Sampatrao Yewale vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1246

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and deleted an addition of Rs. 7,38,500 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits as agricultural income and bank withdrawals.

Quantum Of Expenditure Not Relevant for Purposes of S.12AB Registration: ITAT Holds Genuineness of Object, directs to Grant Registration

Dhwani Shristi Foundation vs CIT (Exemptions) CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1247

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that quantum of expenditure was not relevant for granting registration under section 12AB and holds genuineness of object for granting registration.

The two-member bench comprising Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member) and Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) observed that the CIT(E)’s rejection was primarily based on the trust’s low expenditure, despite the assessee submitting all necessary documents.

Chennai ITAT Applies ‘Surviving Period’ Rule for First Time, quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notice

Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1248

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) quashed a reassessment notice holding that the Income Tax Department cannot issue reassessment notices under the new regime beyond the “surviving period” prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act.

The two-member bench comprising George George K (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal had held that reassessment notices under the new regime must be issued within the “surviving period” available under law, which is computed conservatively from the date of the assessee’s reply.

Ex-Parte Income Tax Assessment Against Continuously Absent Assessee: ITAT Restores Case for Meritorious Adjudication

Indra Devi vs AC/DC CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1249

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has restored an ex-parte income tax assessment for the Assessment Year 2013–14, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the matter afresh on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, consisting of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) and Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member), after hearing the representative of the Revenue Department observed that the assessee had failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing by the Assessing Officer.

Cash Deposit From Prior Withdrawals a Substantiated Source: ITAT Partly Grants Relief of Rs.10.50 Lakh for Deposit During Demonetization

Haralur Narayana Reddy Nagaraj vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1250

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief of Rs.10,50,000 by accepting that cash deposits during the demonetization period were sourced from prior withdrawals.

The single-member bench comprising Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice President, observed that the AO had obtained the bank statements directly from Karnataka Bank and used them to make the addition.

Honda Motorcycle India’s ₹10.84 Crore FTS Payment to Asian Honda: ITAT Remands to Determine Taxability & P.E. under India–Thailand DTAA Due to Missing Documents

Asian Honda Motor Co vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1251

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal of Asian Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and remanded the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), after noticing that relevant documents to determine the taxability of ₹10.84 crore in Fees for Technical Service (FTS) receipts were not placed on record.

The Tribunal Bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Naveen Chandra (Accountant Member) found that the issue could not be conclusively determined in the absence of the relevant service agreements.

AO Not Required to Record Categorical Finding For Income Escapement: ITAT Upholds Reassessment Despite Lack of Cross Examination

The DCIT vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1252

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) stating that a categorical finding of income escapement is not necessary for reopening an assessment.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Krinwant Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the AO received credible information from the investigation unit, indicating that some expenses debited by the assessee could be doubtful.

NHAI Grant Not Deductible from Project Cost: ITAT Upholds Deletion of ₹43.43 Crore Depreciation Disallowance

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Madhucon Agra Expressway Ltd CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1253

The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has upheld deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 43.43 crore as depreciation and confirmed that the Rs. 38.40 crore grant received from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) cannot be reduced from the project cost for computing depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice-President) and Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), observed that the grant was provided as cash support in the nature of shareholder’s funds to enhance the project’s commercial viability and facilitate additional financing.

Assessee's Failure to Submit Evidence Leads ITAT to Remand Case for Fresh Hearing

Raju V. Mahakalkar vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1254

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur Bench has remanded the case of the appellant back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh hearing, after the assessee repeatedly failed to submit evidence or appear before the tax authorities.

residing over the matter, V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, held that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case and substantiate his claims before the appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) for all three assessment years and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal also cautioned that the assessee should not seek adjournments without justified reasons.

ITAT Quashes Penalties Citing Revised Audit Report, Rules No Intentional Misreporting by Cooperative Society

Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti vs Income Tax Officer Ward–2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1255

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has quashed penalties totaling ₹7,78,502 imposed on a cooperative society, under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal ruled that the society had not intentionally misreported income and accepted its revised audit report as valid grounds to delete the penalty.

The bench, comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member ) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member), allowed both appeals filed by the cooperative society, bringing relief to the taxpayer. The order underscores that penalties cannot be sustained without evidence of wilful default or malintent, especially when errors are rectified through proper documentation.

ITAT Upholds Deletion of Bogus LTCG Addition, Rules No Evidence of Tax Evasion in Share Transactions

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(1) vs Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1256

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete a ₹5.60 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Nagpur-based assessee Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani. The assessing officer had treated long-term capital gains (LTCG) from share transactions as bogus, alleging accommodation entries, but the tribunal found no concrete evidence to justify the tax evasion claim.

The order was pronounced by the Bench comprising V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, and K.M. Roy, Accountant Member, who concluded that the assessing officer's addition was based on assumptions and lacked any direct incriminating evidence linking the assessee to the alleged modus operandi.

ITAT Rules in Favor of Rural Co-op Society: Deduction Under Section 80P Valid for Nominal Members, Overturns CIT(A) Order

Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1257

In a significant relief for rural cooperative credit societies, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Nagpur Bench has ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even in respect of income attributable to nominal members.

The Tribunal, presided over by V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, concluded that the deduction under Section 80P as claimed by Rajura Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit was valid. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed that the deduction be allowed in full.

ITAT Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal, Upholds Deletion of ₹5.2 Crore Addition Under Section 41(1) Due to Lack of Cessation of Liability Evidence

Income Tax Officer vs N. Kumar Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1258

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue and affirmed the deletion of ₹5.2 crore added under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of N. Kumar Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove cessation of liability or any benefit arising to the assessee during the relevant financial year.

The Bench comprising Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member, and Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Member, took note of multiple case law references cited by the assessee, including CIT v. Shivali Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2013), CIT v. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2013), and CIT v. Speedways Tyre Ltd. (2014), which supported the view that mere passage of time or absence of transactions in a particular year does not automatically trigger cessation under Section 41(1).

ITAT Grants School Principal Fresh Hearing in 3.65 Crore Tax Case, Cites Procedural Lapses

Ganesh Mahadeorao Thaware vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1259

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, has set aside an appeal order and directed a fresh hearing for a school principal accused of failing to disclose cash deposits worth ₹3.65 crore during the 2014–15 assessment year. The tribunal highlighted procedural lapses in the reassessment process and granted the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member), presiding over the case, ordered the CIT(A) to re-examine the matter, including the validity of the reassessment and the merits of Thaware’s claims. The tribunal also instructed Thaware to cooperate with the proceedings and submit all required documents promptly.

ITAT Grants Relief to NGO: Technical Filing Error Won't Block 80G Tax Benefits

Gayatri Gram Vikas Sanstha vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1260

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Nagpur Bench, ruled that a technical error in filing an application for tax exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should not deny the NGO its rightful benefits. The tribunal emphasized that such inadvertent mistakes should not override the substantive merits of the case.

The tribunal directed the trust to file a fresh application under the correct clause, Section 80G(5)(iv)(B), and instructed the CIT(E) to process it without being influenced by the earlier rejection. The ITAT’s order made it clear that procedural lapses should not hinder access to tax benefits if the entity meets the substantive requirements of the law.

Relief for UCIL: ITAT Finds No Penalty Warranted u/s 270A for Missed CSR Disallowance Due to Accountant’s Error

D.C.I.T vs Uranium Corporation of India CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1261

The Ranchi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) finds no penalty warranted under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act,1961, for missed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) disallowance due to accountant’s error, granting relief to Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL).

The two member bench comprising George Mathan (Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay (Accountant Member) observed that the company was a public sector undertaking that regularly filed returns and followed government rules. It noted that the company had incurred losses during the year but still paid tax under Section 115JB of the Act.

Real Estate Firm Backs Down: ITAT Formally Dismisses Uncontested Tax Appeal

Harmony Homes vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1262

The case arose from Harmony Homes’ challenge to the order dated March 20, 2024. However, at the hearing held on February 24, 2025, the company, represented by its authorised representative Mahavir Atal, declared it was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. In response, the Department, represented by Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, raised no objection to the withdrawal.

Taking note of the submission, the Tribunal bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) passed a concise order dismissing the appeal as “not pressed”.

ITAT Grants Liquor Shop Owner Second Chance, Cites Natural Justice in Ex-Parte Case

Hameeda Arif Lalani vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1263

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has given the owner of Uday Country Liquor Shop in Yavatmal district, a fresh opportunity to present her case after her appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.

V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member), after hearing both sides and examining the records, observed that although the appellate authority had issued several notices, the order was ultimately passed ex-parte without hearing the taxpayer.

ITAT Upholds Co-op Society’s Tax Exemption, Cites ‘Operational Funds’ to Reject Revenue’s Appeal on Interest Income Income Tax Officer vs Maharashtra Urban Co–operative CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1264

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and upheld the tax exemption granted to a Co-operative Credit Society under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal’s order rules that the society’s interest income from deposits qualifies for deduction as it arises from operational funds maintained for business purposes.

Two Member Bench composed of V.Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) , concluded that the benefit of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was rightly granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal expressly stated that the interest income from deposits with co-operative banks and from nominal members is assessable as business income and not as income from other sources.

Non-Compliance with Fresh Registration Requirement Following J&K Reorganisation: ITAT Rejects S. 12A Registration MataBhuvaneshori Asthapan vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1265

The Amritsar Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has refused to grant registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) ( CIT(E) ) observing that the assessee society failed to furnish a fresh registration certificate as mandated after the reorganisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory.

The Bench comprising Udayan Das Gupta (Judicial Member) and Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) observed that since the re-registration certificate is pending the provisions of Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 cannot be complied with, without which the application for registration under the Income Tax Act 1961 cannot be proceeded with.

Taxpayer Wins Remand Despite Lapses: ITAT Orders New Hearing on ₹34 Lakh Unexplained Credit

Kiran AnilGothi vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1266

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an ex-parte appellate order and directed a fresh hearing in the case of the appellant, who faced an addition of ₹34,31,971 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2018–19. The Tribunal’s decision comes after both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously dismissed the taxpayer’s explanations due to lack of documentary evidence.

After hearing both sides, V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member ) noted that while the taxpayer had failed to appear and provide evidence at earlier stages, the appellate order was passed ex-parte. Citing the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer should be given one more chance to present the case before the CIT(A). The ITAT set aside the earlier order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, instructing that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be provided and that the taxpayer should avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Retrospective Amendment Inapplicable: ITAT Allows ₹2.32 Lakh Deduction for Trust’s Accumulated Fund Utilisation

ShriKrishnanagar Vaishnvsamaj vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1267

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) and deleted the adjustment made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), held that the retrospective amendment to Section 11(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was inapplicable.

The Tribunal ruled that legal provisions should be interpreted with practicality and reasonableness by citing the doctrine of impossibility. It also rules that the assessee utilized the funds within the originally stipulated period and therefore the CPC’s adjustment was incorrect.

Unexplained Cash Credits Taxable Despite Rejected Books: ITAT Upholds ₹6.58 Crore Addition

M/s. SahyogConstruction A-9 vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1268

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 6.58 crore as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and ruled that such additions are permissible even when the assessee’s books of accounts are rejected. The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of Rs. 6,58,43,000 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 and held that additions for unexplained credits are valid even when the books of accounts are rejected.

The two-member bench comprising Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif, which clarified that additions for unexplained credits from undisclosed sources are permissible even when books are rejected, as they do not constitute double taxation.

Common Area Maintenance Charges Not Taxable as Rental Income: ITAT Deletes ₹17.08 Lakh Addition

Lysa TradingLLP vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1269

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted an addition of Rs. 17,08,908 made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) and held that the recovery of Common Area Maintenance Charges ( CAMC ) by assessee from its tenant is not taxable as rental income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), observed that the AO and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee’s explanation due to a misunderstanding that the CAM charges were paid to SEPL.

Accountant Not Informed About Income Tax Notice: ITAT Restores 12AB and 80G Registration Matter with 10k Costs Shri Ram BhaktMandal Trust vs Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1270

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored applications for registration under Sections 12AB and 80G to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] for de-novo consideration with a cost of Rs. 5,000 for each appeal, totaling Rs. 10,000, to be paid to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

The two-member bench comprising SiddharthaNautiyal (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) observed that the trust’s non-compliance was evident but deemed it appropriate to provide another opportunity.

₹90 Lakh Received for Transferring Rights in Land without Registered Title Taxable as Income from Other Sources: ITAT HirenRameshbhai vs The Dy. CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1272

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that ₹90,00,000 received by the assessee for transferring rights over a land without a registered title deed is taxable as income from other sources and it cannot be termed as long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) noted that the assessee has not submitted any details in the form of the settlement agreement or the deed of relinquishing of right in the property either before the AO or before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ( CIT (A) ). Even the payment proof has not been submitted.

Relief for Aditya Birla: ITAT Rules Disallowance u/s 40(a) Cannot Be Retaxed if Provision Reversed in Subsequent Year Aditya BirlaSun Life AMC Ltd. vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1273

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that disallowance under Section 40(a) for earlier years cannot be added back again when the entire provision has been reversed in a subsequent year to prevent double taxation.

The two-member bench comprising Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) observed that since the entire provision had already been offered to tax when reversed, taxing the disallowed portion again would lead to double taxation.

Taxpayer Can Raise Additional Claims Before Appellate Authorities: ITAT Allows ₹4.90 Cr ESOP claim Arvind Limitedvs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1274

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) allowed a deduction of Rs. 4,90,35,650 for Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) expenses, including an additional claim of Rs. 1,77,40,250 not originally made in the return of income, held that taxpayers can raise additional claims before appellate authorities.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R.Kumar (Vice-President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) observed that while Goetze restricts the AO from allowing claims outside revised returns, it does not limit appellate authorities powers.

ITAT Deletes ₹52.91 Lakh Unexplained Investment Addition on Land Purchase Due to Unreliable Draft MOU Evidence KanubhaiDhulabhai Patel vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1275

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition of Rs. 52,91,053 made by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) as unexplained investment under Section 69 and ruled that the evidence based on a draft Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU ) found during survey was unreliable and could not form the basis for such addition.

The two-member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice-President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) observed that the documents were not finalized, contained blanks in clauses, and lacked evidence of actual payments from the buyer’s or seller’s accounts.

Unexplained 33- Fold Share Price Increase: ITAT Upholds ₹80.17 Lakh Bogus LTCG Addition u/s 68

Suresh ChandraSadh vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1276

The Agra Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the Assessing Officer’s (AO) addition of Rs. 80,17,339 as bogus long-term capital gain (LTCG) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 citing Unexplained fold share price increase.

The two-member bench, comprising Sunil Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee failed to explain the 33-fold share price increase during the assessment proceedings, before the CIT(A), or at the ITAT.

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