Transactions Between Holding & Subsidiary For Issuance Of Shares Not Covered U/S 56(2)(viib) Of IT Act: Delhi ITAT Quashes Revision Against OYOCase Title: OYO Hotels vs Principal CITCase Number: ITA No.2611/Del/2024The Delhi ITAT held that the transactions between holding and its wholly owned subsidiary entity towards issuance of shares are not covered within ambit of Sec 56(2)(viib)...
Case Title: OYO Hotels vs Principal CIT
Case Number: ITA No.2611/Del/2024
The Delhi ITAT held that the transactions between holding and its wholly owned subsidiary entity towards issuance of shares are not covered within ambit of Sec 56(2)(viib) in absence of any benefit arising from such transactions.
Referring to the Coordinate Benchs, the Bench of Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar US (Judicial Member) reiterated that Sec 56(2)(viib) would not apply in the present case where the transaction is between the assessee (subsidiary company) with its 100% holding company as issuance of share.
Case Title: Shah Rukh Khan vs Deputy CIT
Case Number: ITA No.6312/MUM/2024
The Mumbai ITAT has quashed the reopening of assessment proceedings against the Assessee/ Appellant i.e., Shah Rukh Khan for AY 2012-13.
The tribunal held that the reasons recorded while initiating the re-assessment, were completely silent as regards the allegation that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Case title: Kapil Dev Nikhanj v. ACIT
Case no.: ITA No. 1770/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Delhi allowed renowned cricketer Kapil Dev to claim exemption on Rs. 1.5 crore one-time benefit granted to him by the BCCI in 2013, in recognition of his services.
Noting that the cricketer had offered the amount for tax under ignorance, bench of M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member) and MS Madhumita Roy (Judicial Member) said, “It is trite law that right amount of tax should be collected from the right person in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax could be collected except by an authority of law. When a statute specifically provides a particular exemption of a particular receipt from tax, the said receipt cannot be brought to tax merely because the assessee had offered erroneously in the return of income.”
Case title: The Indian Hotels Company Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2(2), Mumba
Case no.: ITA No.5653/MUM/2011
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has granted relief to the Indian Hotels Company Ltd, which owns the Taj hotels chain and set aside an addition of ₹8,22,25,142/- made by the Assessing Officer to its declared income of ₹107,74,26,414/- for the AY 1998-99.
The Tribunal quashed the reopening basis the incorrect invocation of Clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act since the original assessment had already been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of the Assessee.
ITAT Rejects Revenue's Appeal Seeking To Make ₹63.21 Billion Addition To DLF's Income For AY 2017-18
Case title: DCIT v. DLF Limited
Case no.: I.T.A. Nos. 711/Del/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi has dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue against an order of the National Faceless Centre (CIT(A)), deleting aggregate ₹63,02,13,86,035 addition made to income of real estate giant DLF Limited on various counts, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
In its 82-page judgement, the Tribunal also disposed of the company's appeal against confirmation of addition made by CIT(A) on account of unverified purchase transactions, by remitting the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh.
Transferor Not Liable U/S 56(2) Of Income Tax Act For Undervalued Property Sale To Spouse: ITAT
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Chennai v. M. Mahadevan
Case Number: ITA No.1824/Chny/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai stated that transferor not liable under Section 56(2) Of Income Tax Act for undervalued property sale to spouse.
The Bench of SS Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) and Amitabh Shukla (Accountant Member) observed that “the hypothesis propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and not supported by the statutory stipulations governing the matter. It is true that the wife of the assessee has acquired a property for an amount significantly lower than its actual reported value. However, the said transactions would make the wife of the assessee liable for additional taxation within the meanings of Section-56(2). Stretching the transaction and implicating assessee into it does not appears to be the correct line of action”.
Case Title: Smt. Lakshmi Narasimhan Santhi v. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:3013/CHNY/2024
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that S.148 Income Tax notice issued after 31.03.2021 under old regime invalid despite TOLA [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020] extension.
George George K. (Vice President) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that due to COVID-19, the Government introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 (TOLA), extending time limits. Accordingly, the time available for the Department to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act under Old Regime, falling during the period from 20.03.2020 till 31.03.2021, were extended till 30.06.2021.
Case Title: Sivakarthick Raman v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: ITA No.:281/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that salary received by Chinese resident for the services in China not taxable in India, even if credited to the Indian bank account.
Manu Kumar Giri (Judicial Member) and S.R. Raghunatha (Accountant Member) observed that “the AO has disallowed the exemption claimed with respect to salary received in India for services rendered in China as taxable in India since the salary has been credited by BMW India Pvt Ltd into the assessee's account at Chennai from the payroll account of Chennai……. The salary income for services rendered in China has been rightly offered tax by the assessee in China.”
Case title: Indian National Congress All India Congress Committee v. DCIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi
Case no.: ITA No.1609/Del/2023
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the Indian National Congress seeking income tax exemption for the income of ₹199.15 crore during the assessment year 2018-19.
The Tribunal rejected the party's claim for exemption on the ground that there was a violation of the conditions in Section 13A of the Income Tax Act. The returns were filed late, the ITAT noted. Calling for a strict interpretation of the exemption clause, the ITAT observed that "the moment there is violation of such a “due” date, section 13A 3rd proviso gets attracted, so as to result in denial of exemption to the political party concerned."
Widow Eligible To Claim TDS Credit On Deceased Husband's Income: ITAT
Case Title: Lovely Das v. Addl/JCIT, Nashik
Case Number: I.T.A. Nos.: 291, 292, 293 & 294/KOL/2025
The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that widow eligible to claim TDS credit on deceased husband's income.
Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member) stated as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA and sub-rule 3(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if the income is assessable in the hands of any other person, the credit of TDS shall be given to him for the year in which the income is shown.
Case Title: Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana v. ITO, Ward-1 (9) Ahmedabad
Case Number: ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that rebate under section 87A available on short-term capital gains under section 111A under new regime.
Suchitra R. Kamble (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) stated that on a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at special rates under section 111A. The legislative intent is further clarified by the subsequent amendment proposed in the Finance Bill, 2025, which is prospective in nature and thereby reinforces that no such restriction was in force during the relevant assessment year.
Property Transfer Between Spouses Without Actual Consideration Not Taxable As Capital Gains: ITAT
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.957/Del/2025
The New Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that property transfer between spouses without actual consideration is not taxable as capital gains.
S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member) were dealing with the issue arises out of addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, being consideration amount mentioned in conveyance deed, executed by late Sunil Kumar, as received, from his wife Bimila Devi, who was alleged purchaser.
Wedding Gifts Can't Be Automatically Treated As 'Unexplained Income' Without Evidence: ITAT
Case Title: Manubhai Dahyabhai Bhoi v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.779/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that wedding gifts can't be automatically treated as unexplained income without evidence.
Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member) stated that the fact that marriage gifts were received prior to the date of marriage itself could not lead to the conclusion that the same are not genuine, when a complete lists of persons from whom the gifts were received was duly submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and no specific defect had been pointed out with respect to the lists of persons so furnished by the assessee.
Case Title: Ankit Gems Private Limited v. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai
Case Number: ITA No. 3097/MUM/2025
The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that the assessee is not required to prove negative once documentary evidence is produced.
Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) stated the assessee cannot be made to prove the negative stance for which has been taken by it, right from the very first hearing by bringing on record all the corroborative documentary evidence in respect of its actual and real purchase made by it, forming part of the books of accounts.
Case Title: Pradeep Jeyavelu v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No.1626/Chny/2025
The Chennai Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has stated that sale proceeds of a minor's property share deposited under court order are excluded from father's taxable income.
S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member) held that the assessee cannot decide the utilization of his minor daughter's share as it is deposited as per Court's order and it is impossible to club the same in the assessee's (father) hand.
Assessment Order Not Void Solely Because It Was Passed in Deceased's Name: ITAT Chandigarh
Case Title : Late Shri Lakha Singh Through Legal Heir Hira Singh Dera v ITO, Kurukshetra
Case Number: ITA No. 1151/Chd/ 2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, recently held that an appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), reassessing the income tax liability of an assessee, is not invalid merely because it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal noted that since the appeal itself was filed under the deceased's name, the order cannot be quashed on that ground alone.
Judicial Member Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member Manoj Kumar Aggarwal observed, “since the appeal before the CIT(A) itself was instituted in the name of Sh. Lakha Singh and not in the name of his legal heir, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be vitiated merely because it was passed in the name of the deceased. Assuming for a moment that the order of the CIT(A) were to be treated as erroneous for this reason, even in that eventuality the order of the Assessing Officer would remain undisturbed and would continue to operate against the assessee”.
Mumbai ITAT Quashes ₹445 Crore Transfer Pricing Adjustment Against Netflix India
Case title: Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 23(1), Mumbai
Case no.: ITA No.6857/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has recently set aside a Rs 445 crore transfer pricing adjustment on Netflix India for financial year 2021-22, rejecting the Revenue's claim that the company, as a licensee of its streamed content, owed higher taxes.
The authorities had imposed the tax because they treated Netflix India, the Indian arm of US-based streaming giant Netflix, as a licensee of Netflix US's intellectual property. They claimed the company owed deemed royalty and license fees for using the content library and proprietary streaming technology in India, far higher than Netflix India's declared fixed profit of just 1.36% on Indian sales.
Case Title: M/s. Lakshmiammal Progressive Educational Trust v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2193/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an independent enquiry or verification by the department is mandatory before treating charitable donations as involuntary.
George George K (Vice President) stated that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) treated the donations as not voluntary donation and sustained the addition made by the AO. The FAA has not carried out any independent enquiry or verification to ascertain whether donations are voluntary or not. The findings of the FAA appear to rest on presumptions, surmises, and conjectures, rather than on any concrete material or evidence.
Case Title: ACIT v. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
Case Number: ITA No.5403/MUM/2025 (A.Y.2022-23)
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has deleted Rs. 4.6 Crore disallowance made under Section 14A Income Tax Act, against Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in a high-profile income tax case.
The case was heard by bench comprising of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Renu Jauhri (Accountant Member) regarding the disallowance of expenses relating to exempt income under Section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 760/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19)
CASE TITLED: SANJAY KOTHARI (HUF) VS. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
On November 17th, 2025 the Bench of Shri Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) of the ITAT Mumbai partly allowed the appeal holding that the disallowance under Section 14A (Expenditure for exempt income) r/w Rule 8D cannot exceed the actual expenditure of ₹69,455 incurred by the assessee, and that the excess refund of ₹1,26,32,970 received on return of capital advance retained its character as a capital receipt and could not be taxed as income.
The assessee had preferred an appeal before ITAT, Mumbai being aggrieved by the Order passed by the CIT(Appeals), whereby the CIT(A) further affirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer, observing that the excess refund of advance received from the Karta, Shri Sanjay Kothari (in his individual capacity), as taxable income in the hands of the HUF.
CASE NUMBER: ITA NO. 6680/MUM/2024
CASE TITLED: LOGWIN AIR & OCEAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(1)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that once the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) is accepted for benchmarking all international transactions, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot cherry-pick only the management fee and assign an Arm's Length Price (ALP) at NIL.
In the case in hand, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ITAT seeking deletion of the Transfer Pricing adjustment on management fees and the consequential enhancement of income, being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under Section 144C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1994.
Case Name: Anupama Agarwal vs. DCIT
Case No. : ITA No. 5676/Del/2025
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has remitted back the addition of capital gains deduction to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication in absence of a remand report despite repeated reminders.
The Bench, comprising Mr. Mahavir Singh (Vice President) on the claim of assessee that income was an exempt income for being a sum received under life insurance policy noted AO's failure to furnish remand report.
Case Title: DCIT, Circle- 41(3)(1) Mumbai Vs. Deepak Shah
Case No: ITA No. 3870/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has held that where purchases are conclusively proven to be bogus and the assessee fails to substantiate the genuineness of suppliers, the entire purchase amount must be added to income and the benefit of estimating profit element cannot be applied.
A Bench of Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Accountant Member) was hearing a Revenue appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted disallowance of alleged bogus purchases to 15% on the ground that sales were not doubted. The Bench reversed the partial relief and restored 100% addition in respect of four purchase parties.
Case Title: Rajni Arvind Birla v. Income Tax Officer
Case Number: I.T.A. No. 930/Ahd/2025
The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that an assessment order passed without awaiting the DVD (Departmental Valuation Officer) report violates Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Sanjay Garg (Judicial Member) and Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) opined that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B, without awaiting the DVO's report, when such a report was statutorily awaited, is not sustainable.
Case Title: Preity G. Zinta vs. Income Tax Officer
Case No: ITA No. 4199/MUM/2025
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai has set aside a ₹10.84 crore addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of actress Preity G. Zinta, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
A Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member), while hearing the appeal of Preity G. Zinta against an addition under Section 68, observed that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the documents proving the genuineness of loan transactions routed through entities of the Danish Merchant Group.
Case Title: Hareshkumar Mafatlal Shah v. ACIT, Mumbai
Case No.: ITA No. 5439/Mum/2024
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai has held that long-term capital gains (LTCG) arising from the sale of listed shares cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of general allegations of penny-stock manipulation, when the assessee has supported the transactions with complete documentary evidence.
A Division Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the additions of ₹2.41 crore made towards alleged bogus LTCG and ₹9.66 lakh towards estimated commission under Sections 68(Unexplained Credit Cash) and 69C(Unexplained Expenditure) of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai Deletes Additions Based On HSBC Geneva 'Base Note' Against Anil Ambani
Case Title: DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai Vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani
Case No.: ITA No. 6228/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6229/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6230/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6231/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6232/Mum/2025, ITA No. 6233/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Revenue against businessman Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, holding that additions made on the basis of alleged undisclosed foreign bank accounts with HSBC Bank, Geneva were unsustainable in law.
A Bench comprising Anikesh Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had deleted both substantive and protective additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2001–02 to 2006–07.
Income Tax Act | GST Would Not Form Part Of Gross Receipts Under Section 44BB: ITAT Mumbai
Case Title: Oceaneering International GmbH v. DCIT (International Taxation)
Case No.: ITA No. 6705/Mum/2025 | AY 2023–24
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected by a non-resident assessee cannot be included in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Oceaneering International GmbH for Assessment Year 2023–24 and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude GST while computing income on a presumptive basis.
Income Tax | ITAT Mumbai Allows Section 80P Deduction On Interest Earned From Co-operative Banks
Case Title: Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. ITO Ward-1(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6376/Mum/2025
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a co-operative housing society to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act on interest income earned from deposits placed with co-operative banks.
A Bench comprising Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Rahul Chaudhary (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, Clover Everest World Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and set aside the denial of deduction by the tax authorities for Assessment Year 2021–22.
Case Title: Shri Indihaf Jamal Mohamed v. The Income Tax Officer
Case Number: ITA No.: 2398/CHNY/2025
The Chennai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely due to delay in registration if investment in new residential property is made within the prescribed time.
George George K (Vice President) stated that if the assessee has utilised the sale proceeds within the stipulated time, the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54 of the Act, provided the assessee has satisfied the other conditions stipulated under Section 54 of the Act.
Case Title: Vodafone West Limited (formerly known as Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 4(1)(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 671/AHD/2015 and ITA No. 1634/AHD/2015
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that multiple additions made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained in law. The Bench held that the transfer of passive telecom tower assets pursuant to a court-approved demerger amounted to a genuine “gift” under Section 47(iii), and the Assessing Officer could not artificially impute consideration or deny depreciation.
It further ruled that roaming services do not involve human intervention so as to qualify as “technical services”, and therefore no TDS was deductible u/s 194J, rendering the consequential disallowance unsustainable.
US Government Pension Received In India Not Taxable Under India-USA DTAA: ITAT Delhi
Case Title: Jeanne Lee Cantrill v. DCIT, Circle-67(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6322/Del/2025 | AY 2016–17
The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that pension received by a US national from a US government retirement fund cannot be taxed in India merely because the amount was received here, as the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) grants exclusive taxing rights to the United States.
A Bench comprising Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), while hearing the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2016–17, examined whether pension received from a United States government retirement fund by an American national working in India could be subjected to tax in India, despite the specific exemption available under Article 19(2) of the India–USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
Case Name: National Foundation for Corporate Governance vs. ITO, Ward 2 (4),
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed a Trust that had accumulated Income for Financial Year 2016-2017 to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and deleted addition of ₹37,99,090.
In a recent order, a Division Bench, comprising Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) and Shri Sudhir Kumar (Judicial Member) on effect of amendment restricting the accumulation period for income of charitable/religious trusts under Section 11, it was clarified that the Trust had retained the right to utilize funds till March 31, 2023.
Film Broadcasting Licence Fees Not Royalty Under India–Mauritius DTAA: Mumbai ITAT
Case Title: M/s Asia Today Limited Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 2(2)
Case No.: ITA No. 1403/M/2008 A.Y.: 2004-2005
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal, holding that the consideration received for granting non-exclusive broadcasting rights of Hindi feature films does not constitute “royalty” taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India–Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Narender Kumar Choudhry and Accountant Member Omkareshwar Chidara was hearing the appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to tax ₹1 crore received from licensing film broadcasting rights as royalty.
Case Title: ACIT Vs. Mallics Jewels
Case No.: I.T.A No. 312/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Lucknow Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an appellate order deleting a ₹2.75 crore addition made on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period and has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
A Bench comprising Vice President Kul Bharat and Accountant Member Anadee Nath Mishra was hearing the Revenue's appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which had earlier deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of a jewellery firm for Assessment Year 2017–18.
Case Title: M/s JS Infrastructure Vs. ACIT Central Circle-2
Case No.: IT(SS)A No. 3120/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed the appeal filed by M/s JS Infrastructure, deleting an addition of ₹50 lakh made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in proceedings initiated under Section 153C.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Kavitha Rajagopal and Accountant Member Omkareshwar Chidara held that no addition could be sustained in a completed assessment in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search.
Case Title: Ketan Himatlal Mehta Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(!), Mumbai
Case no.: ITA No. 2499/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2020-21
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has set aside an income tax addition of over ₹18.48 crore made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the disputed immovable property was held as stock-in-trade by the assessee.
A Bench comprising Judicial Member Rahul Chaudhary and Accountant Member Om Prakash Kant was hearing the appeal filed by an individual assessee for Assessment Year 2020-21 against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Case Title: Western Industrial Co-operative Estate Limited Vs. DCIT Circle 32(1)
Case No.: ITA No. 6514/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2017-2018
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has ruled that rental income earned by a co-operative society from letting out its administrative building is assessable under the head “Income from House Property” and not as “Income from Other Sources.”
A Bench comprising Vice President Saktijit Dey and Accountant Member Jagadish was hearing cross appeals filed by Western Industrial Co-operative Estate Limited for Assessment Year 2017-18.
ITAT Mumbai Restores Trust's 12AB Registration Matter To CIT(E) For Fresh Consideration
Case Title: Shri Hans Maharaj Trust Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Mumbai
Case No.: ITA No. 1721/Mum/2025
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, has set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] rejecting the application of Shri Hans Maharaj Trust for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and has remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
A Bench comprising Accountant Member Vikram Singh Yadav and Judicial Member Anikesh Banerjee was dealing with an appeal filed by the trust against the order dated 26.12.2024, whereby the CIT(E) had declined registration on the ground that one of the objects in the trust deed allegedly violated Section 11 of the Act by permitting application of funds outside India.
Case Title: DCIT Vs. Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd.
Case No.: ITA No. 4240/Del/2016 (AY 2010-2011)
The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has upheld substantial tax relief granted to Mahle Filters Systems (India) Ltd. for Assessment Year 2010–11, rejecting the Revenue's challenge to the company's deduction claimed under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act.
A Bench comprising Vice President Mahavir Singh and Accountant Member Krinwant Sahay, while deciding cross-appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue, held that the tax department was not justified in treating the assessee's amalgamation as a sham or in tinkering with the method of allocation of after-market trading expenses.