ITAT Weekly Roundup

(ITAT) reported at Taxscan, from April 19, 2026 to April 25, 2026.

S.80P Deduction Claim by Co-operative Society Cannot be Disallowed Solely for Lack of Supporting Details: ITAT Remands for Fresh Verification

A2455 Madurai Electricity SystemPSCS vs The Income Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 402

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai Bench, held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be disallowed solely for want of supporting details and remanded the matter for fresh verification.

The Tribunal therefore considered it appropriate to give the assessee one more opportunity to place the necessary details on record. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

Royalty & Sponsorship Receipts of ₹4.73 Cr Not Classified as Business Income: ITAT Upholds Exemption to Wrestling Federation of India

Income Tax Officer (Exemption)vs Wrestling Federation of India

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 403

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench has held that royalty and sponsorship receipts amounting to ₹4.73 crore earned by the Wrestling Federation of India cannot be treated as businessincome thereby upholding its entitlement to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal comprising Raj Kumar Chauhan (Judicial Member) and Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member) held that there was no profit motive and that the receipts were utilized for promoting wrestling.Accordingly,It was pointed out that the incidental receipt would not affect the charitable nature of the trust. In view of its earlier judgments, the Bench found that the provision to Section 2(15) did not apply.

Gratuity Deduction Cannot Be Denied for ITR-TAR Mismatch: ITAT Remands ₹85.25 Lakh Claim for Verification

AT & T Global NetworkServices India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 404

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that a genuine claim of gratuity deduction cannot be denied merely due to an inadvertent mismatch between the Income Tax Return (ITR) and the Tax Audit Report (TAR), and remanded the matter for verification of ₹85.25 lakh.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for limited verification. It directed that if the gratuity payment of ₹85,25,109 is found to have been actually made during the relevant assessment year and supported by an actuarial valuation report the same shall be allowed as a deduction.The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT Upholds ₹4.93 Cr Alternate Export Profit Deduction under Income Tax Despite Denial of 100% Export Oriented Unit Benefit

Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax vs M/s Hi-tech Outsourcing Services

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 405

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench has upheld the allowance of an alternate export profit deduction of ₹4.93 crore despite denial of the primary claim for 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) benefit dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.

The Tribunal stressed that tax proceedings have for their object the ascertainment of the proper tax liability and not the technicality of procedure and held that denial of deduction under one provision does not bar a legitimate alternate claim particularly when the assessee satisfies the conditions and such benefit was consistently allowed in earlier years.

S. 12AB Reg of TN Maritime Board Rejected on Alleged Commercial Grounds: ITAT Orders Fresh Examination of its Functions

Tamil Nadu Maritime Board vs TheIncome Tax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 406

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),Chennai Bench, has set aside the rejection of registration under Section 12AB and sent the matter back for fresh consideration.

The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to re-examine the claim after properly considering the nature of the Board’s functions and the legal position. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to place its case on record.

Occupation Charges to Port Trust Allowable as Business Expense Despite No Active Business Operations: ITAT Allows ₹2.3 Cr Income Tax Deduction

Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax vs M/s. ABS Exports

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 407

In a recent ruling, the Surat Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that ₹2.30 crore paid as occupation charges to the Kolkata Port Trust was a valid business expense under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the assessee had no active business operations during the relevant year.

The tribunal stated that the settlement of business-related liabilities constitutes a valid business expense, even if the assessee had temporarily ceased operations. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding to that extent, and there is no need to interfere with the same.

Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Not Unexplained when Recorded in Books: ITAT Deletes ₹1.30 Cr Addition

ACIT vs Priti Brijal Bhatia

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 408

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has upheld the deletion of ₹1.30 crore treated as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period.

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

ITAT Allows Deduction for Bhavishya Kalyan Yojana Provisions Worth ₹26.78 Lakh in Favour of Tata Motors Body Solutions

Tata Motors Body SolutionsLimited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 409

In a ruling in favour of Tata Motors Body Solutions Limited (formerly Tata Marcopolo Motors Limited), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, held that a provision for the Bhavishya Kalyan Yojana (BKY), based on an independent actuarial valuation, constitutes an ascertained liability and is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

In view of this, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to grant the deduction for the BKY provision of ₹26.78 Lakh and the Medicare Scheme claim of ₹21.39 Lakh, while also deleting significant portions of the disallowance related to other business expenses.

Failure to Verify Disproportionate Expenses & Related Party Transactions: ITAT Confirms Income Tax Revision against Amazon Retail India

Amazon Retail India PrivateLimited vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 410

In a ruling against Amazon Retail India Private Limited, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the revisionary order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961, setting aside the assessment order that had accepted a loss of ₹639 Crores without conducting necessary inquiries.

Accordingly, the ITAT held that the fundamental infirmity in the AO's order, such as the failure to verify why losses were incurred despite a doubling of turnover and the failure to verify disproportionate expenses to related parties, brought the assessment within the ambit of Section 263. The Tribunal confirmed the PCIT's order and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

Disallowance of Weighted R&D Deduction u/s 35 Unsustainable where Valid DSIR Approval in Form 3CM Exists: ITAT

ITW INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vsDCIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 411

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench upheld the deletion of disallowance of ₹1.91 crore claimed as weighted deduction on research and development (R&D) expenditure holding that the existence of a valid approval in Form 3CM is sufficient compliance.

The Bench concluded that where statutory approval in Form 3CM exists and relevant documents are on record a denial of deduction on procedural grounds is unjustified.

TP Adjustment on International Transactions Cannot be Applied on Entire Turnover: ITAT Restricts Adjustment to AE Transactions

Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax vs Brady Company India Private Limited

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 412

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore Bench has held that Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments must be confined only to international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AE) and cannot be extended to the assessee's entire turnover.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and confirmed the deletion of the ₹2.95 crore transfer pricing adjustment.

Section 44AD Applicability Shields Small Business Taxpayer: ITAT Deletes Section 68/69C Additions on Alleged Bogus Sales

Hitesh Bhikhubhai Desai vs TheITO Ward-3(3)(1),Surat

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 413

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, has set aside additions made under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that presumptive taxpayers under Section 44AD cannot be subjected to such additions in the absence of maintained books of accounts.

The bench, comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President) and Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), agreed with the assessee’s contention. It was observed that mere assumptions of bogus transactions cannot justify additions when documentary evidence supports the sales. The bench emphasized that under Section 44AD, income is computed on a presumptive basis, and once the taxpayer declares turnover and profit accordingly, separate additions under Sections 68 and 69C are unwarranted.

Capital Gain on Co‑Owned Agricultural Land Not Offered: ITAT Quashes ₹18.41 Lakh Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): ITAT

Kantibhai Tulshibhai Bhadani vsThe ITO

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 414

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, set aside a penalty of ₹18.41 lakh imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after finding that the notice issued to the taxpayer was defective and the omission arose from a bona fide belief regarding the taxability of agricultural land.

The tribunal observed that “The assessee is one of the co-owners and in fact and other co-owners case, the Assessing Officer has not made any addition. Therefore the question of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income does not arise in present assessee’s case.”

Minimum Alternate Tax Provisions u/s 115JB Inapplicable to Nationalised Banks Constituted Under Special Statute: ITAT Deletes ₹268.74 Cr Addition on UCO Bank

M/s UCO Bank vs ACIT, LTU-2,Kolkata

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 415

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Kolkata Bench held that the provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to nationalised banks constituted under a special statute thereby deleting an addition of ₹268.74 crore made on UCO Bank.

The Bench set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed deletion of the ₹268.74 crore addition granting substantial relief to UCO Bank.

Bright Line Test Cannot be Applied for AMP Adjustment: ITAT Deletes ₹53.78 Lakh TP Addition to Louis Vuitton India

Louis Vuitton India RetailPrivate Limited vs ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 416

In a ruling in favour of Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, deleted the transfer pricing adjustment of ₹53.78 Lakhs made based on the Bright Line Test (BLT) , holding that the Delhi High Court had explicitly discarded the BLT approach in landmark cases.

The ITAT held that the TPO’s reliance on BLT was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted on account of AMP expenses, allowing the specific ground of appeal challenging the BLT adjustment.

Deduction of Interest Paid on VAT Duty Allowable: ITAT Restores ₹22.35 Lakh Claim by Louis Vuitton India

Louis Vuitton India RetailPrivate Limited vs ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 416

In a ruling regarding the allowability of interest expenditure, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2018-19, restored the issue of the deduction of interest paid on VAT duty amounting to ₹22.35 Lakhs to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO), allowing the claim raised by Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited.

The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the claim, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

Relief to Louis Vuitton India: ITAT Remands issue of Bonus Disallowance u/s 43B Paid Before Due Date

Louis Vuitton India RetailPrivate Limited vs ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 416

In a ruling regarding the timing of statutory deductions, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 2018-19, remanded the issue of a bonus disallowance amounting to ₹50.19 Lakhs to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO), allowing the claim raised by Louis Vuitton India Retail Private Limited.

The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the AO with a specific direction to examine the contentions of the Assessee and verify whether the bonus was paid within the due date. The ground was allowed for statistical purposes, granting the Assessee the opportunity to establish the timing of the payment to secure the deduction.

₹60.46 Lakh Rural Agricultural Land Capital Gains Case Remands for Fresh Assessment: ITAT Condoning 935‑Day Appeal Delay Cited Due to COVID‑19

Babubhai Jesangbhai Marand vsJurisdiction AO

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 417

In a recent ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rajkot Bench, has granted relief to an agriculturist from Kachchh, Gujarat, by condoning a 935‑day delay in filing his appeal, citing the COVID‑19 lockdown and bona fide reasons, and remanding his ₹60.46 lakh rural agricultural land capital‑gains case for fresh assessment.

The tribunal observed that “We further, note that assessment was framed under Section-144 of the Act. Considering, this we remand back this matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearing as may fit by AO and do not seek adjournment, failing which AO shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.”

PAN & Valuation Proofs Validate ₹1.62 Cr Loan, ₹56.66 Lakh Share Premium: ITAT Deletes Income Tax Additions

Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax vs Lord Shiva Construction

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 418

In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)observed that the ₹1.62 crore loan and ₹56.66 lakh share‑premium valuation were supported by PAN verification, audited financials, and valuation reports, establishing compliance with statutory requirements and leaving no basis for the Revenue’s challenge and deleted income‑tax additions amounting to ₹2.89 crore.

The Tribunal noted that the AO ignored the practical realities of the construction business, where cash handling for labour and materials is routine, and found no inconsistency in the audited books.

Provision for Wage Arrears on Pay Revision Not a Contingent Liability: ITAT Upholds ₹8.50 Cr Deduction to Chennai Central Co-operative Bank

The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs M/s. Chennai Central Cooperative Bank Ltd

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 419

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench has allowed the claim of a provision for ₹8.50 crore to provide for wage arrears of Chennai Central Co-operative Bank.

Accordingly, The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), that provision for wage arrears arising from pay revision constitutes an ascertained liability and is allowed under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961.

Multiple Surnames in KYC of Taxpayer: ITAT upholds SCN issued for Unexplained Cash Deposits

Sonal Sunil Jolapure vsITO-Ward-3

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 420

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),Panaji Bench, upheld the issuance of show cause notice (SCN) for unexplained cash deposits upon noting that the taxpayer in question had multiple surnames in the Know Your Customer (KYC) document.

ITAT took into consideration the PAN identification details and passport details to confirm the old and new surnames of the assessee/appellant and observed that the notices issued are on the same person. The bench of GD Padmahshali (Accountant Member) and Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member), therefore, found no merit in the grounds of appeal and upheld the validity of the SCN issued against the assessee.

‘Owner Share of Flat Purchase’ Expense Claim: ITAT remands matter for Want of Evidence, Directs to Submit Share break up

DCIT vs Hoysala Projects Pvt.Ltd

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 421

The Bangalore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has directed the income tax authorities to take a fresh look into a ₹8.89 crore ‘Owner Share of Flat Purchase’ expense claimed on want of evidence. The bench was also directed to submit the share break up.

The tribunal has instructed the AO to verify if the company had genuinely submitted those documents offline back in 2019. If the records exist, the claim will be evaluated based on them.

₹1.37 Cr ‘Consultancy’ Charges Not Proven as Business Expense: ITAT Upholds Income Tax Disallowance against Jeweler

M/s. Davanam Jewelers Private vsThe ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 422

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore Bench has upheld the disallowance of ₹1.37 crore claimed by a jewellery company as consultancy expenditure, ruling that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness or business necessity of the payment.

The Bench remarked that “the claim of the assessee is bald, bereft of genuineness and lacking any evidence to support it,” concluding that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Non- compliance of Cash Deposits Notice led to Penalty: ITAT halves Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) on Mutual Consensus

Ashish Daulatrm Sariya vs NFAC

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 423

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, who failed to comply with statutory notices issued during assessment proceedings concerning cash deposits, by reducing the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act from ₹20,000 to ₹10,000 upon mutual consensus between the parties.

The bench, comprising Paresh M. Joshi (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad (Accountant Member), noted that there was a near consensus between both parties that a reduced penalty of ₹10,000 would adequately serve the ends of justice.

Loss on Investment in Subsidiary Company Not Capital Loss: ITAT holds it as Business Loss, allows Claim

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limitedvs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 424

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that loss arising on investment in a subsidiary is to be treated as business loss where the investment is made for business purposes.

The Tribunal, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President), examined the purpose behind the investment. It noted that the investment in the subsidiary was connected with the assessee’s business and not in the nature of a standalone capital investment. Relying on CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., the Tribunal held that loss arising from such investment is allowable as business loss.

Addition u/s 69A Unsustainable Where Based on Incorrect Bank Account Information: ITAT Upholds Deletion of ₹8.44 Cr

The ITO vs Gulmohar Associates

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 425

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chandigarh Bench dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the deletion of ₹8.44 crore added under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal further allowed the assessee’s cross-objection, holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 were invalid as they were based on incorrect factual information.

The Tribunal held that the premise for reopening the existence of three bank accounts and the inflation of the credit balance figures was inaccurate making the reassessment process invalid.

TDS Non-Deduction on LTC Under Binding HC Interim Orders Does Not Constitute Default u/s 201: ITAT Grants Relief to SBI

State Bank of India vs AssistantCommissioner

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 426

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Ahmedabad Bench held that State Bank of India [SBI] could not be considered an assessee in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of the failure to deduct TDS from LTC amounts due to the fact that the same was in line with binding interim orders of the High Court. Hence, the demand along with interest made under Section 201(1A) was set aside.

The Tribunal comprising Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice-President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member).that although the question of exemption under LTC concerning foreign travel had been decided in favor of the assessee the key question was whether non-withholding of TDS while judicial directions were operative could lead to default under Section 201.

Channel Owner Companies cannot be Compared with Distributors: ITAT Deletes TP Adjustment made Against Warner Media

Warner Media India P. Ltd vsACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 427

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has held that companies owning and operating television channels cannot be compared with a distribution business.

The Tribunal held that channel owner companies cannot be compared with a distributor for benchmarking purposes.

Interest Income from Co-operative Banks Eligible for Deduction u/s 80: ITAT Dismisses Appeal Against RBI Officers Credit Society

Income Tax Officer 26(1)(1) vsReserve Bank Officers Co Op. Credit Society Ltd

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 428

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench has upheld the eligibility of deduction on interest income earned from co-operative banks by the Reserve Bank Officers Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. dismissing the Revenue’s appeal while directing limited verification of the claim.

The Tribunal held that a co-operative credit society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act on interest income derived from investments made with co-operative banks. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) was directed to verify the quantum of deduction claimed.

Reopening of Income Tax Assessment Approval Not Taken from Competent Authority u/s 151: ITAT Quashes Order

Vipul Agrawal vs ACIT

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 429

In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside a reassessment order after finding that the approval for reopening the case under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not obtained from the competent authority.

The bench pointed out a jurisdictional lapse—Agrawal’s income exceeded ₹15 lakh, meaning the case should have been handled by an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) rather than an Income Tax Officer (ITO), as per CBDT instructions. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid in law and quashed the order.

Addition on Foreign Remittance Unsustainable Due to Non Consideration of Documentary Evidence: ITAT Sets Aside Addition of ₹23.13 Lakh

HPC Infotech P. Ltd. vs IncomeTax Officer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 430

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench set aside the addition of ₹23.13 lakh made on account of unexplained foreign remittances holding that the failure of the lower authorities to examine relevant documentary evidence renders the addition unsustainable. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, comprising Judicial Member Shri Vikas Awasthy, observed that although the CIT(A) claimed to have considered the documents the impugned order did not reflect any analysis or findings on the evidence submitted. The Bench noted that the core issue was limited to verification of the source of funds, and the assessee had placed sufficient material on record to support its claim. Thus, the Tribunal held that the matter requires fresh verification.

AO’s Rejection of Grocery Cash Claim Invalid: ITAT Rules No Valid Reason, Orders Deletion of ₹10.09 Lakh Addition

Somnath Kannure vs Income TaxOfficer

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 431

In a recent ruling, the Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (SMC) has struck down a ₹10.09‑lakh addition made to a grocery trader’s income, holding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had no valid reason to reject the assessee’s explanation that the cash deposits represented business receipts.

The bench, Vinay Bhamore (judicial member), Dipak P.Ripote (accountant member ), observed that the assessee had explained the alleged cash deposits of ₹10,09,700 as part of his Kirana business turnover of ₹93.71 lakh, supported by his return of income.

Non-Disclosure of Contract Receipts Despite TDS Deduction Unsustainable: ITAT Upholds ₹5.97 Cr Addition

Virgo Softech Limited vs DCIT,Circle-25(1)

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 432

The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld an addition of ₹5.97 crore against ruling that non-disclosure of contract receipts despite deduction of tax at source (TDS) is unsustainable under law.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee neither offered the receipts to tax in earlier years nor in the year of receipt. It noted that no documentary evidence was furnished to substantiate prior taxation or justify the accounting treatment. The Bench further held that Form 26AS entries coupled with TDS deduction strongly indicate taxability and cannot be ignored.

Addition confirmed on Diamond Purchase alleging Suppliers’ Purchase Bogus: ITAT Permits Additional Evidence including ITR of Suppliers and Purchase Invoices

Redeem Exports Pvt.Ltd vs TheITO

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 433

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat Bench, confirmed addition to assessee's income on diamond purchase alleging supplier’s purchase to have been bogus. ITAT permitted additional evidence for the assessee's case, including Income Tax Return (ITR) of suppliers and purchase invoices.

The bench of Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) thus remanded the matter for proper verification and adjudication of issue on merit as per the Income Tax Act. Conclusively, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

ITAT allows SBI Staff Welfare Expenditure as Business Expense

State Bank of India vs AssistantCommissioner of Income-tax

CITATION : 2026 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 434

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, allowed the deduction claimed by State Bank of India (SBI) for provisions made towards employee benefits such as leave travel concession, sick leave, and casual leave. The Tribunal held that these liabilities, accrued from services already rendered by employees, represented an "ascertained liability" and not a "contingent liability," warranting a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The tribunal held that the contribution made by the assessee to the retired employees benefit scheme, being a bona fide business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, is allowable as deduction. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 State Bank of India vs. ACIT, which had held that such provisions are not hit by Section 43B(f) and are allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1).

TP Adjustment Unsustainable Due to Non-Compliance with Tribunal Directions to Dispute Resolution Panel: ITAT

M/s. Xchanging Solutions Limitedvs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1738

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Bangalore Bench held that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be sustained where there is non-compliance with its earlier directions issued to the Dispute Resolution Panel, and directed recomputation of the Arm’s Length Price (ALP).

The Bench comprising Prashant Maharishi (Vice President) and Soundararajan K (Judicial Member) partly allowed the appeal holding that failure to properly give effect to its earlier directions vitiated the transfer pricing adjustment to the extent of five comparables. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the ALP after excluding those comparables.

Delay in Filing Form 67 Not a Ground to Deny FTC Claim if Submitted Before Assessment Completion: ITAT Allows Foreign Tax Credit

Subramanian Muthukumaran vs TheITO, Non-Corporate Ward

CITATION : 2025 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1738

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chennai Bench has ruled that a delay in submitting Form 67 cannot be considered a reason for denying Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) when it has been submitted before the completion of the assessment process. The ITAT ordered the assessing officer to provide the entire FTC of ₹3.20 lakh to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is directory in nature. It observed that since the assessee had furnished Form 67 and supporting documents before completion of assessment, the claim could not be denied on technical grounds.

Weighted R&D Deduction Cannot Exceed DSIR Approved Amount: ITAT Rejects Excess Claim u/s 35(2AB)

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limitedvs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1740

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that weighted deduction on research and development expenditure under Section 35(2AB) cannot exceed the amount approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR).

The claim for additional deduction was therefore rejected, and the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.

Export Incentives under MEIS Not Taxable as Revenue Receipt: ITAT Excludes from MAT Computation

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limitedvs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

CITATION : 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1741

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, has held that incentives received under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) are not in the nature of revenue receipts and are not taxable.

The Tribunal, comprising T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar (Vice President), examined the scheme and the nature of the receipts. It noted that MEIS incentives are granted as part of a policy measure to promote exports and compensate exporters, and not as consideration for carrying on business.

₹39.45 Cr NHAI Subsidy Disallowed for Inflated Depreciation: ITAT Classifies Toll Rights as Intangible Asset

Ashish Daulatrm Sariya VS NFAC

CITATION : 2024 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 1742

In a recent ruling, the Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the Right to Collect Toll qualifies as an intangible asset eligible for higher depreciation at 25%, while simultaneously upholding the disallowance of a ₹39.45 crore subsidy received from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for inflating depreciation claims.

The bench comprising Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member) and Shri M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) sustained the disallowance of ₹3.98 crore for resurfacing provisions, holding that the liability was contingent and not scientifically estimated under AS‑29, and could only be claimed when actually incurred. Similarly, capitalization of a negative grant of ₹129.55 crore payable to NHAI was rejected, as the liability had not crystallized and did not qualify for depreciation.

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