ITAT Weekly Round -Up [ July 13th - July 19th ]

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 13th, 2025 to July 19th, 2025.

Conditions For Donees U/s 80G Satisfied: ITAT Allows Deduction of CSR Donations

DCIT vs HindujaGlobal Solutions Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1277

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the revenue’s appeal and upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]’s order to delete the disallowance of a deduction claimed for CSR donations under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench, comprising Shri Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and ShriNarendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had explicitly claimed the donations under Section 80G and not as CSR expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income tax Act.

ITAT Quashes Reassessment Against Assessee in NSEL Scam Matter: Says No Failure to Disclose Material Facts

Asha Viren Rajvs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1278

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), has quashed the reassessment initiated against Asha Viren Raj for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was invalid since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts during the original assessment.

The Bench consisting of Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) on considering the lack of jurisdictional validity for reopening and the absence of any merit in the addition, quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the addition under Section 68, thereby granting full relief to the assessee.

Consider GST Registration and Import Export Certificate for Proprietor Claim: ITAT Remands FTC Matter for Verification

Hirachand DamjiDand vs ACIT Circle 16(1) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1279

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and directed to verify the assessee’s claim as proprietor of M/s Blue Lion Entertainment Company through GST registration and import export certificates.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

The two-member bench comprising Raj Kumar Chauhan (Judicial Member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) observed that the GST registration and import export certificates submitted by the assessee to be considered for Proprietorship claim of Blue Lion Entertainment company.

ITAT Rules Non-Submission of Provisional Registration Copy for S.12AB Registration Not a Ground to Determine Pre-Requisite Condition

IndianInstitute of Fire Engineering vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1280

The Nagpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] which rejected the application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The two-member bench comprising V. Durga Rao (Judicial Member) and K.M. Roy (Accountant Member) reviewed the paper book submitted by the assessee and observed that the trust was registered under Section 12A since 2017-18 and had valid provisional registration under Section 12AB.

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

HMG EngineeringPvt. Ltd vs ITO, Ward (1)(1)(4) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1281

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

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

Project Completion Method Upheld: ITAT Deletes ₹3.56 Crore Addition for Real Estate Developer

VyaptiEnterprise vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1282

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition of Rs. 3,56,16,215 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee correctly followed the Project Completion Method under Accounting Standard-9 (AS-9) for revenue recognition.

The two-member bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee, as a developer owning the land, was not a contractor providing construction services.

Husband Funded Investment in Joint Property Not Taxable: ITAT Deletes ₹2.18 Cr Addition u/s 69A

NalinibenDipakbhai Patel vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1283

The Ahmedabad Benchof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted an addition of ₹2,18,19,600 made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the investment in joint property was made by the husband but not by the appellant and is held not taxable.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

The tribunal bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member), that the appellant had duly demonstrated that she herself did not make any investment in the properties. The details of investment were duly reflected in the books of the husband, and the source of investment was also furnished. It held that the burden of proof on the appellant was fully discharged.

Addition Based on Suspicion of Fictitious Profit via Client Code Modification Facility in F&O Segment Without Investigation Not Sustainable: ITAT

Income-taxOfficer vs Munish Bajaj and Sons HUF CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1284

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer(AO) on suspicion basis without any independent investigation regarding the alleged fictitious profit earned by misusing Client Code Modification Facility in Futures and Options (F&O) segment was not sustainable in law.

The bench comprising Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member) upheld CIT(A) decision and observed that the addition to the returned income was made on suspicion basis that the speculation profit was earned by misusing Client Code Modification Facility in F&O segment without any independent investigation by the AO.

FTC Claim Not Denied Despite Delay as Filing of Form 67 Held Directory, Not Mandatory: ITAT

Nanda KishoreRavula vs ADIT (International Tax)-2 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1285

The Tribunal observed that the AO erred in denying credit for FTC even though the necessary form had been placed on record before the assessment order was passed. The Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in its recent ruling held that Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) cannot be denied merely because of a delay in filing Form 67 when the form was submitted prior to the completion of the assessment order, observing that the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides procedural requirements under domestic law.

The Bench comprising Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) and Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member) set aside the order of the CIT(A), noting that the AO wrongly denied FTC and the appeal was dismissed without proper appreciation of facts.

ITAT orders fresh hearing for Ex Parte dismissal of Agricultural Income Tax case

Paloor SomanRajeev vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1286

The Cochin bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directed a fresh hearing for an ex parte agricultural income for the year 2020-2021 and the appeal was sent to statistical purposes. The matter denotes Rajeev's return of income for assessment year 2020-2021 in which he reported a total income of Rs.5,42,320 and notably claimed Rs.45,00,000 as exempt agricultural income.

The ITAT comprising Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Inturi Rama Rao ( Accountant Member) allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes.

ITAT Remands Ex Parte Tax and Penalty Appeals citing delays and denied opportunity

Rajesh BabulalShah vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1287

The Mumbai bench of Income tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ordered the tax related additions and penalties were sent back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.The matter will be reconsidered based on their merits.

The tribunal explicitly directed the CIT(A) to condone the delays in filing which it found to be adequately explained by the assessee and to re-adjudicate the appeals by issuing reasoned orders.The ITAT comprising Anikesh Banerjee ( Judicial Member) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) ordered all three appeals for statistical purposes.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

ITAT Rules Domain Registration and web Hosting not Royalty Income

PDR SolutionsFZC vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1288

The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the Domain name registration services receipts and web hosting services receipts incomes are not taxable as royalty citing consistent rulings from the high court and its own coordinate benches which states that the services do not fall within the definition of royalty under the Income-Tax Act or the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and further are not to be considered as fee for technical services or for included services.

The bench comprising Anubhav sharma (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant member) held that such incomes are not taxable as royalties . The grounds raised in the appeal were sustained and the impugned additions were deleted. Therefore the appeal was allowed.

ITAT Quashes Tax Assessments, Citing Mechanical and invalid approval under section 153D

Minda CapitalPvt. Ltd vs ACIT, Central Circle 13 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1289

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench has quashed several tax assessments,ruling that a mechanical and arbitrary approval process under section 153D renders the resulting orders a nullity. The appeals are filed by the Minda Capital Pvt. Ltd and the Income Tax Department challenged the orders issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals due to the commonality of the issues they were consolidated for a joint hearing and were disposed of through a single order.

The bench consisting of Anubhav sharma (judicial member) and Rifaur rahaman(Accountant member) partially allowed the three appeals filed by the taxpayer and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.

ITAT Condones Significant Appeal Delay for Elderly Directors Citing Health Concerns Due to Pandemic

HydroairTectonics PCD PCD Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1290

The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has granted relief to an assessee by condoning a substantial delay in their appeal noting the health circumstances of the company's elderly directors. This decision effectively overturns the prior dismissal of the appeal by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which had been based on a significant 937-day delay.

The bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the tax authorities. Consequently, the tax authorities are directed to provide both parties a fair opportunity to be heard.

Circular Transactions could be added Substantively Only Once: ITAT quashes Income Tax Demand

ShriTharanipathy Rajkumar vs ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1291

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), ITAT Chennai Bench, has delivered a significant verdict in the case of Shri Tharanipathy Rajkumar relating to Assessment Year 2017-18, ruling that circular transactions involving multiple entities can be subjected to substantive addition under Income Tax Act only once.

The tribunal bench of Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member also observed that commissions retained by these entities constituted their income alone and could not be added again in the hands of the assessee.

ITAT Condones Delay and Restores Appeal for Fresh Adjudication Due to Lack of Natural Justice in NFAC Order

Chandra DeepKumar vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1292

The Patna Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication, noting lack of natural justice in the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC).

The bench, in the larger interest of justice, restored the matter back to the CIT(A) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for adjudication and directed them to give the assessee sufficient opportunity to furnish details and necessary evidence.

Non-Disclosure of ₹27.67 Lakh Interest Received u/s 244A: ITAT Holds It Taxable and Rejects Rectification Plea

Gujarat StatePolice Housing Corporation Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1293

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that ₹27.67 lakh received as interest under section 244A of Income Tax Act,1961, was taxable as “income from other sources” and dismissed the taxpayer’s rectification plea.

The two member bench comprising Suchitra Kamble ( Judicial Member) and Narendra Prasad Sinha ( Accountant Member) noted that the assessee had received interest of ₹27,67,422 under section 244A during the year, which was taxable as “income from other sources” and should have been disclosed in the return for AY 2015-16. It held that the adjustment of the refund against outstanding demands for earlier years did not justify non-disclosure of the interest income.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

Registration of Trust u/s 12B of Income Tax Act cannot be Rejected Merely due to non-submission of Certain Documents: ITAT directs Fresh Adjudication

M/s. SamskruthiEducational Trust vs The Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1294

The Bangalore bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remitted the case back to CIT(E) to decide the final registration of a trust under section 12AB of income tax Act, 1961 holding that registration cannot be rejected merely due to non submission of certain documents.

The bench comprising Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member) and Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member) remitted the issue back to the commissioner for a fresh decision and a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to present all the necessary documents .

ITAT condones 719 days delay in filing Income Tax appeal considering ill health of Managing Person

SankatmochanJan Kalyan Seva Samiti vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1295

The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has set aside an ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) CIT(E) which had rejected the assessee’s application for registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act,1961.

The two-member bench comprising Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member) held that the assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit all the necessary details . The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

Assessee Produced Documentary Evidence to Prove Genuineness of Share Capital: ITAT Confirms CIT(A)’s Deletion of ₹3.07 Cr Income Tax Addition

DCIT vs TarunInternational Ltd. CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1296

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently dismissed the Revenue department’s appeal and also upheld the deletion of an income tax addition of ₹3,07,09,348 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had produced necessary documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share capital investment.

The bench comprising Yogesh Kumar U.S (Judicial Member) and Manis Agarwal (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Act.

Relief for IndiGo: ITAT Upholds Deletion of Rs. 11.05 Crore Disallowance u/s 37 as AO’s Final Assessment Confirms Nil Income

DCIT vs M/s.Interglobe Aviation Limited CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1297

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) upheld the deletion of Rs. 11.05 crore disallowance under section 37 in favor of Interglobe Aviation Limited ( IndiGo ), observing that the Assessing Officer (AO )’s final assessment under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act,1961confirmed nil income after proper scrutiny, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal.

The two member bench comprising Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) and S.Rifaur Rahman ( Accountant Member) reviewed the submissions and records. The assessee declared nil income in the return. The AO disallowed expenses of Rs. 38.48 crore under section 37 while processing the return under section 143(1). On appeal, JCIT (A) deleted this disallowance after checking the facts and evidence.

Relief for Genpact: ITAT Allows S.10AA Deduction on Interest from FDs and Staff Loans

M/s. GenpactIndia Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT (OSD) CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1298

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) granted relief to Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. by allowing deduction under Section 10AA of Income Tax Act,1961 on interest income earned from fixed deposits and staff loans.

The two member bench comprising Mahavir Singh ( Vice President) and Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member) heard both sides and examined the records. It held that the interest income earned from fixed deposits and staff loans should be treated as business income for the purpose of deduction under Section 10AA of the Act.

Additions u/s 153A for Unabated Years Set Aside in Absence of Incriminating Material: ITAT Remands as Assessee was under Judicial Custody

Shri SanjayAwathare vs Vs. ACIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1299

The ITAT Hyderabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside additions made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2017-18 and 2018-19, noting that the assessee could not respond due to being in judicial custody.

The bench comprising Vijay Pal Rao (Vice President) and Manjunatha G (Accountant Member) remanded the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, after allowing the assessee to submit supporting documents and explain the source of the bank entries.

Section 69A Inapplicable For Audited Cash Deposits: ITAT Deletes ₹58.50 Lakh Unexplained Money Addition

BALSONSJEWELLERS vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1300

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted an addition of Rs. 58,50,000 made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money and held that the provision is inapplicable when cash deposits are duly recorded in audited books of account.

The two-member bench comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) observed that the assessee’s books were audited under Section 44AB, and all deposits were recorded with supporting documents like cash books, stock registers, sales bills, and VAT assessments.

CBDT SOP on Demonetisation Cash Deposits Saves NRI from Higher Addition: ITAT Restricts ₹5 Lakh Addition to ₹2.5 Lakh

Anil ManilalPatel vs ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1301

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Ahmedabad bench has partially set aside an addition made on cash deposits during the demonetisation period, invoking the guidelines prescribed in the CBDT’s Standard Operating Procedure ( SOP ) dated 21st February 2017.

The bench of T.R. Senthil Kumar ( Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar ( Accountant Member) observed that “applying the CBDT's SOP, a cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000 /- by an individual without business income should be treated as prima face explained, and does not warrant further verification, unless there are exceptional facts indicating concealment, which are absent in the present case.”

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

ITAT restores appeal to CIT(A) over property valuation, Citing assessee's inability to access Notice Through emails

Sandeep Rout vsITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1302

The ITAT Cuttack Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored an assessee’s appeal to the CIT(A) over property valuation. This was due to the assessee’s lack of knowledge in accessing emails or income tax portals leading to unawareness of notices and the failure to respond or appear during the initial appeal proceedings.

The single bench of Duvvuru Rl Reddy (Vice President) held that the issues regarding this appeal would be restored to CIT(A) for readjudication and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The bench also cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings before CIT(A) and if the assessee failed to cooperate , the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law and on the basis of the merits based on the materials available on the record.

CIT(A) cannot Reject Additional evidence u/r 46 A of Income Tax Rules against unexplained Investment Merely because of non-furnishing before AO: ITAT

VaratharajVenugopal vs The Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1303

The Chennai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee to furnish the additional evidence under rule 46 A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before the Assessing Officer (AO), as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (CIT(A)) had added the value of an immovable property Rs.30,00,000 as unexplained investment due to the assessee’s failure to submit necessary documentary evidence.

The two-member bench comprising Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) & Jagadish (Accountant Member) had set aside and remanded the matter to the AO to examine documentary evidence as may be filed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT Allows Carry Forward of Loss, Deletes Late Fee as Partner Filed Return Within Extended Due Date u/s 92E

Dhiren RamanlalShah vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1304

The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the carry forward of long-term capital loss and deleted the late filing fee of Rs. 5,000, holding that the return was filed within the extended due date applicable to a partner of a firm required to file a report under section 92E of Income Tax Act,1961.

The two member bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member) observed that the partnership firm, M/s. Ramson Exports, had filed the required audit report on 31.10.2022. Since the assessee was a partner in the firm, he was entitled to the benefit of Explanation 2(aa) to section 139(1), making the due date for filing his return 30.11.2022.

SCN Issued for Property Purchase to Wrong Assessment Year: ITAT Quashes PCIT Order

Johar HasanZojwalla vs Pr. Comm. of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1305

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT ) set aside the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that the show cause notice (SCN) was issued for a property purchase falling in Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, not the relevant AY 2021-22 under consideration.

The two-member bench comprising Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Narendra Kumar Billaiya (Accountant Member) observed that the transaction date of 03/08/2021 clearly fell in the previous year relevant to AY 2022-23.

80IB(10) Deduction Denial for Housing Project: ITAT Restores ₹1.73 Cr Claim to AO Relying on SC Precedent on Architect's Completion Certificate

M/s Bee GeeConstruction Co vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1306

The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication of a deduction claim of Rs. 1,73,68,000 under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a case involving denial of the benefit for a housing project due to lack of a completion certificate from the local authority.

The two-member bench comprising Rajpal Yadav (Vice President) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) observed that the lower authorities had not examined the merits of the architect’s certificate.

Penny Stock Transactions Found Genuine: ITAT Deletes ₹1 Cr Addition Relying on SEBI Report and Sister Case Precedent

Asha HimmatBhadra vs DCIT Circle 32 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1307

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) deleted additions under Sections 68 and 69C in a case involving penny stock transactions and held that the shares of Splash Media were purchased and sold legitimately on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) through a SEBI-registered broker.

The two-member bench comprising Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Prabhash Shankar (Accountant Member) observed that the SEBI report, requested by the Income Tax Department, confirmed no adverse findings on price rigging or manipulative patterns in the scrip.

Addition of Rs. 46.87 Lakhs Based on Partner’s Seized Documents: ITAT Quashes Assessment for Bypassing S.153C Procedure

M/s AmicoTextiles vs DCIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1308

The Chandigarh Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) quashed the assessment for bypassing Section 153C procedure, where an addition of Rs. 46.87 lakhs was made based on documents seized from a partner of the firm.

The ITAT found that the addition was entirely based on material seized from one of the partners during the search. Since the document did not originate from the assessee-firm directly but pertained to it, the assessment ought to have been made under Section 153C.

AO cannot Make Addition on Bogus Purchases without Rejecting Books or Reported Sales : ITAT says such Addition Legally Unsustainable

RajendraShangari vs DCIT, Circle-1 CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1309

The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) deleted the addition of Rs. 38.46 lakh made towards bogus purchases, holding it legally unsustainable as the Assessing Officer (AO ) had not rejected the books of account or disputed the reported sales.

The two member bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma ( Judicial Member) and Ratnesh Nandan Sahay ( Accountant Member) noted that the AO treated the purchases of Rs. 38,46,188/- as bogus without rejecting the books of account or questioning the reported sales and income. Since the sales were accepted, the related purchases should have also been accepted.

Unexplained Cash Deposit During Demonetisation Led to Addition in Income: ITAT Restores Matter to AO

MaulikAshokkumar Shah vs Income Tax Officer CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1310

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) noting that the assessee had failed to properly explain a cash deposit of Rs. 26.5 lakh made during the demonetisation period.

The two member bench comprising Dr. B.R.R Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) found that the appellant had not given a proper explanation during assessment either. However, to ensure fair hearing, it restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to respond to notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Disallowance of Business Expenses Made Without Proper Justification: ITAT Restricts It to 10% of Expenses Claimed

Raj Quarry vsThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1311

The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) restricted disallowance of business expenses to 10% of the total claimed, noting the absence of proper justification from the Assessing Officer (AO).

The two member bench comprising Dr.B.R.R. Kumar ( Vice President) and SuchitraKamble (Judicial Member) noted that the AO had not provided any clear basis or justification for making the disallowance. It found that the assessee had reported a loss of Rs.1.35 crores along with brought forward losses of Rs.27.29 lakhs. As a result, even if the disallowance was restricted to 10% on an ad-hoc basis, the tax liability would remain Nil.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

Total Income 100% Tax-Exempt if S.80P Deduction Allowed: ITAT dismisses appeal noting No Effect on Disallowances

The BariaTaluka vs The ITO CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1312

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the appeal, noting that disallowances made by the Assessing Officer (AO) had no tax effect as the assessee was already entitled to full deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The tribunal Bench comprising Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) noted that once the assessee was held entitled to deduction under Section 80P, its entire income became 100% exempt from tax.

Assessee Fails to Prove Genuineness and Creditworthiness: ITAT upholds ₹75.6 Income Tax Disallowance Lakh against Interest on Unsecured Loans

Shyam Realitiesvs The Dy.CIT CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1313

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹75,63,295 for Assessment Years (AY) 2017–18 and 2018–19 as the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans on which the interest was claimed.

The Bench comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahaodekar (Accountant Member) emphasized that the allowability of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act as a fresh claim every year.

CIT(A) Order Lacks Reasoning: ITAT Quashes ₹2.53 Cr LTCG Addition, Orders Fresh AO Assessment

ASHEESH KUMARSHARMA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1314

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in rejecting additional evidence under Rule 46A without providing an opportunity of hearing, in a case involving an addition of Rs. 2,53,62,000 as long-term capital gains (LTCG) under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The two-member bench comprising Challa Nagendra Prasad (Judicial Member) and S Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) observed that the CIT(A) neither adjudicated the submissions nor provided independent findings, rendering the order unsustainable.

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