PADMABEN KANTILAL RANPARA,RAJKOT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(2) RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 516/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the denial of a rebate under section 87A of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which the assessee contested. The assessee, Padmaben Kantilal Ranpara, had filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which arose from an assessment order passed under section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2024-25. The primary contention was whether the assessee was eligible for a rebate under section 87A on short-term capital gains taxed under section 111A, despite opting for the new tax regime under section 115BAC(1A). The Tribunal examined the statutory provisions, previous judgments, and the specific circumstances of the case to arrive at its decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775807 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2024-2025
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana v. ITO, Avni Milanbhai Maniya v. CIT(A)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE WHO HAD OPTED BAC A WHILE
• Keywords: Revised return; Capital Gains
• Section: 11A

Judgement Text

" आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं (िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PerDr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 25. 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: Padmaben Kantilal Ranpara C/o Vrajlal Khusaldas Jewellers, Hemratna Palace, Palace Road, Rajkot – 360001 ᭭थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,राजकोटɊायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 516/RJT/2025 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ/Assessment Year: (2024-25) : Shri P. J. Raiyani Ld. AR : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. : 11/09/2025 Pronouncement : 11/09/2025 ORDER . Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 20 raised by the assessee, are as follows: Padmaben Kantilal Ranpara C/o Vrajlal Khusaldas Jewellers, Hemratna Palace, Palace Road, Vs. Income Tax Officer, wd – Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 PAN/GIR No.: ABNPR3043C (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) 1 राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , Ld. Sr. DR The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, dated 26.06.2025 of the Income Tax Act, after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2024- – 2(1)(2), Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 516/Rjt/2025 Padmaben K. Ranapara “The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing rebate u/s. 87A of Rs. 23,653 on short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 3,46,992/ 111A @15% is Rs. 23,653 against which reba was worked out at Rs. NIL Your petitioner reliance is placed ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2025. Your petitioner pra which act of kindness your petitioner is ever bound. It is prayed that the assessee may be allowed to add, amend to delete or otherwise change any of the grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the division Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in ITA 1014/Ahd/2025 for AY 2024 related to rebate u/s. 87A against tax payabl discussed and adjudicated assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the above said order of the Tribunal, which was also placed on record before 4. The ld. DR for the Revenue 5. I see no reason to take any an the division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsa vide order dated 12.08.2025, follows; “5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the impugned order of the CIT(A), the material placed on record, and the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, the core issue for adjudication before us is “Whether a resident individual who has ex 115BAC(1A) and whose total income is below Rs.7,00,000/ rebate under section 87A against tax payable on STCG under section 111A, in the absence of any express restriction in section 87A or section 111 5.6 The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee, a resident individual, filed a revised return of income for A.Y. 2024 comprising short-term capital gain on listed equity shares taxable at 15% und 111A, and opted for taxation under the new regime under section 115BAC(1A). The CPC, The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing rebate u/s. 87A of Rs. 23,653 on short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 3,46,992/- u/s. 111A. The tax on short term capital gains u/s. 111A @15% is Rs. 23,653 against which rebate u/s. 87A was claimed and tax was worked out at Rs. NIL. Your petitioner prays that the rebate u/s. 87A be allowed. oner reliance is placed on ITAT decision of Jayshreeben J. Palsana v. ITO in ITA No. 1014/Ahd/2025. Your petitioner prays that rebate may be allowed u/s. 87A for ct of kindness your petitioner is ever bound. It is prayed that the assessee may be allowed to add, amend to delete or otherwise change any of the grounds at the time of called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the division Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad in ITA 1014/Ahd/2025 for AY 2024-25, wherein the is related to rebate u/s. 87A against tax payable on Short Term of Capital in favour of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the above said order of the Tribunal, which was also placed on record before the Bench. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. I see no reason to take any another view of the matter, then the the division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsa er dated 12.08.2025, in this order the Tribunal inter-alia 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the impugned order of the CIT(A), the material placed on record, and the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, the core issue for adjudication before us is – “Whether a resident individual who has exercised the option under section 115BAC(1A) and whose total income is below Rs.7,00,000/-, is eligible to claim rebate under section 87A against tax payable on STCG under section 111A, in the absence of any express restriction in section 87A or section 111A.” 5.6 The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee, a resident individual, filed a revised return of income for A.Y. 2024–25 declaring total income of Rs.6,76,402/ term capital gain on listed equity shares taxable at 15% und 111A, and opted for taxation under the new regime under section 115BAC(1A). The CPC, 2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not allowing rebate u/s. 87A of Rs. 23,653 on short u/s. 111A. The tax on short term capital gains u/s. te u/s. 87A was claimed and tax payable . Your petitioner prays that the rebate u/s. 87A be allowed. on ITAT decision of Jayshreeben J. Palsana v. ITO in be allowed u/s. 87A for ct of kindness your petitioner is ever bound. It is prayed that the assessee may be allowed to add, amend to delete or otherwise change any of the grounds at the time of called out for hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the division Bench of 25, wherein the issue apital Gain were in favour of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the above said the Bench. relied on the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). view taken by the division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana, alia observed as 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the impugned order of the CIT(A), the material placed on record, and the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, the ercised the option under section , is eligible to claim rebate under section 87A against tax payable on STCG under section 111A, in the A.” 5.6 The undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee, a resident individual, filed a 25 declaring total income of Rs.6,76,402/-, term capital gain on listed equity shares taxable at 15% under section 111A, and opted for taxation under the new regime under section 115BAC(1A). The CPC, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 516/Rjt/2025 Padmaben K. Ranapara Bengaluru, processed the return under section 143(1) and denied rebate under section 87A of Rs.13,320/-, resulting in a demand of Rs.15,820/ primarily relying on – (i) the “subject to” clause in section 115BAC(1A), (ii) provisions of Chapter XII, and (iii) the Explanatory notes to the Finance Bill 2025. 5.7 Having perused the relevant statutory provisions and the arguments advanced by the assessee’s Authorised Representative (AR), we find merit in the claim of the assessee. 5.8 The amended first proviso to section 87A [inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 w. 2024–25] provides: “Where the total income of the assessee is chargeable to tax under subsection (1A) of section 115BAC and the total income (a) does not exceed seven hundred thousand rupees, the assessee shall be entitled to a deduction...” 5.9 This provision applies to any resident individual whose total income does not exceed Rs.7,00,000 and who is assessed under section 115BAC(1A). The statute does not draw any distinction between normal income and income chargeable at special rates, nor it contain any express exclusion for tax arising under section 111A. 5.10 By contrast, the legislature has inserted an express bar on availability of section 87A rebate in section 112A(6), which states: (6) Where the total income of an assessee incl to in sub-section (1), the rebate under section 87A shall be allowed from the income on the total income as reduced by tax payable on such capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 1 supports the principle that special income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of any exclusion in section 111A or in section 8 assessee. 5.12 At this point we discuss the interplay of Section 115BAC(1A) with Chapter XII where the scope is Confined to Computation of Tax Rates. Section 115BAC(1A) opens with the phrase: “Notwithstanding anythin Chapter…” 5.13 The purpose of this clause is to enable the computation of income concessional rate regime, subject to existing special rate provisions under Chapter XII, such as sections 111A, 112, 112A, etc. This clause governs the computation of tax and does not ipso facto affect ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025 9 eligibility to re Bengaluru, processed the return under section 143(1) and denied rebate under section , resulting in a demand of Rs.15,820/-. The CIT(A) upheld (i) the “subject to” clause in section 115BAC(1A), (ii) provisions of Chapter XII, and (iii) the Explanatory notes to the Finance Bill 2025. 5.7 Having perused the relevant statutory provisions and the arguments advanced by the assessee’s Authorised Representative (AR), we find merit in the claim of the assessee. 5.8 The amended first proviso to section 87A [inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 w. “Where the total income of the assessee is chargeable to tax under subsection (1A) of section 115BAC and the total income — (a) does not exceed seven hundred thousand rupees, the assessee shall be entitled to a deduction...” 5.9 This provision applies to any resident individual whose total income does not exceed Rs.7,00,000 and who is assessed under section 115BAC(1A). The statute does not draw any distinction between normal income and income chargeable at special rates, nor it contain any express exclusion for tax arising under section 111A. 5.10 By contrast, the legislature has inserted an express bar on availability of section 87A rebate in section 112A(6), which states: (6) Where the total income of an assessee includes any long-term capital gains referred section (1), the rebate under section 87A shall be allowed from the income on the total income as reduced by tax payable on such capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and supports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of any exclusion in section 111A or in section 87A must be construed in favour of the 5.12 At this point we discuss the interplay of Section 115BAC(1A) with Chapter XII where the scope is Confined to Computation of Tax Rates. Section 115BAC(1A) opens “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this 5.13 The purpose of this clause is to enable the computation of income concessional rate regime, subject to existing special rate provisions under Chapter XII, such as sections 111A, 112, 112A, etc. This clause governs the computation of tax and does not ipso facto affect ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025 9 eligibility to rebates or deductions 3 Bengaluru, processed the return under section 143(1) and denied rebate under section . The CIT(A) upheld the denial, 5.7 Having perused the relevant statutory provisions and the arguments advanced by the assessee’s Authorised Representative (AR), we find merit in the claim of the assessee. 5.8 The amended first proviso to section 87A [inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. A.Y. “Where the total income of the assessee is chargeable to tax under subsection (a) does not exceed seven hundred thousand rupees, the assessee shall be entitled 5.9 This provision applies to any resident individual whose total income does not exceed Rs.7,00,000 and who is assessed under section 115BAC(1A). The statute does not draw any distinction between normal income and income chargeable at special rates, nor does 5.10 By contrast, the legislature has inserted an express bar on availability of section term capital gains referred section (1), the rebate under section 87A shall be allowed from the income-tax 11A is legally significant and when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of 7A must be construed in favour of the 5.12 At this point we discuss the interplay of Section 115BAC(1A) with Chapter XII where the scope is Confined to Computation of Tax Rates. Section 115BAC(1A) opens g contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this 5.13 The purpose of this clause is to enable the computation of income tax under the concessional rate regime, subject to existing special rate provisions under Chapter XII, such as sections 111A, 112, 112A, etc. This clause governs the computation of tax and bates or deductions Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 516/Rjt/2025 Padmaben K. Ranapara unless specifically restricted. Section 87A is not part of Chapter XII; it is an independent rebate provision under Chapter VIII of the Act. Therefore, the overriding clause in section 115BAC(1A) does not derogate or modify section 87A, provides for exclusion, which, in the present case, it does not. Thus, section 87A operates on the total tax computed, whether it includes tax at slab rates or special rates, and applies so long as the total income threshold is m 5.14 The CIT(A) placed strong reliance on the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2025, which clarified that rebate under section 87A is not available on tax arising from special rate incomes, including those under section 111A. However, we fin reliance to be misplaced for two reasons: - Firstly, the Finance Bill 2025 itself proposes to insert new restrictions on rebate under section 87A w.e.f. A.Y. 2026 (i.e., as applicable to A.Y. 2024 - Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum cannot override the plain language of the statute. It is a tool of interpretation, not a source of substantive law. Therefore, the prospective amendment in the Finance Act 2025 supports under the unamended provision applicable for A.Y. 2024 cannot be denied merely because tax arises under section 111A. 5.15 In the recent judgment dated 24.01.2025 in the case of The Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. Director General of Income Tax (Systems) [TS5026 O], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court considered the issue of system rebate on STCG under section 111A for the Hon’ble Court ITA No.1014/Ahd/2025 10 refrained from interpreting the substantive provisions, it held that the assessee must be allowed to claim rebate under section 87A, and it is for the quasi-judicial authority to decide on merits. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court clearly cannot override statutory rights, and that each case must be adjudicated on its own merits. We at the Tribunal, being such a quasi bound to examine the claim in light automated denial or procedural logic adopted by the CPC. 5.16 The assessee has also relied on an appellate order dated 27.05.2025 passed by CIT(A)-1, Nagpur in the case of Avni Milanbhai Maniya, wherein CIT(A) allowed the claim of rebate under section 87A in respect of STCG taxable under section 111A. We also note that such decision was taken by the JCIT/Addl.CIT(A) relying on the decision of Beena Manishbhai Fofaria for the A.Y. 20 said appellate order affirms that divergent views exist and such benefit has been allowed in similar factual circumstances. 5.17 In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessee is a resident individual and the total income declared for the assessment year 2024 It is also an admitted position that the assessee has exercised the option to be assessed unless specifically restricted. Section 87A is not part of Chapter XII; it is an independent rebate provision under Chapter VIII of the Act. Therefore, the overriding clause in section 115BAC(1A) does not derogate or modify section 87A, unless section 87A itself provides for exclusion, which, in the present case, it does not. Thus, section 87A operates on the total tax computed, whether it includes tax at slab rates or special rates, and applies so long as the total income threshold is met. 5.14 The CIT(A) placed strong reliance on the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2025, which clarified that rebate under section 87A is not available on tax arising from special rate incomes, including those under section 111A. However, we fin reliance to be misplaced for two reasons: Firstly, the Finance Bill 2025 itself proposes to insert new restrictions on rebate under section 87A w.e.f. A.Y. 2026–27, which implies that the existing law (i.e., as applicable to A.Y. 2024–25) does not contain such a restriction. Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum cannot override the plain language of the statute. It is a tool of interpretation, not a source of substantive law. Therefore, the prospective amendment in the Finance Act 2025 supports under the unamended provision applicable for A.Y. 2024–25, rebate under section 87A cannot be denied merely because tax arises under section 111A. 5.15 In the recent judgment dated 24.01.2025 in the case of The Chamber of Tax . Director General of Income Tax (Systems) [TS5026-HC O], the Hon’ble Bombay High Court considered the issue of system-based denial of 87A rebate on STCG under section 111A for assessee who had opted for 115BAC(1A). While No.1014/Ahd/2025 10 refrained from interpreting the substantive provisions, it held that the assessee must be allowed to claim rebate under section 87A, judicial authority to decide on merits. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court clearly held that the CPC utility or system configuration cannot override statutory rights, and that each case must be adjudicated on its own merits. We at the Tribunal, being such a quasi-judicial authority, are therefore duty bound to examine the claim in light of the statutory framework and not be influenced by automated denial or procedural logic adopted by the CPC. 5.16 The assessee has also relied on an appellate order dated 27.05.2025 passed by 1, Nagpur in the case of Avni Milanbhai Maniya, wherein on identical facts the CIT(A) allowed the claim of rebate under section 87A in respect of STCG taxable under section 111A. We also note that such decision was taken by the JCIT/Addl.CIT(A) relying on the decision of Beena Manishbhai Fofaria for the A.Y. 2024-25. While not binding, the said appellate order affirms that divergent views exist and such benefit has been allowed in similar factual circumstances. 5.17 In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessee is a resident individual and l income declared for the assessment year 2024–25 does not exceed Rs.7,00,000. It is also an admitted position that the assessee has exercised the option to be assessed 4 unless specifically restricted. Section 87A is not part of Chapter XII; it is an independent rebate provision under Chapter VIII of the Act. Therefore, the overriding clause in unless section 87A itself provides for exclusion, which, in the present case, it does not. Thus, section 87A operates on the total tax computed, whether it includes tax at slab rates or special rates, and 5.14 The CIT(A) placed strong reliance on the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2025, which clarified that rebate under section 87A is not available on tax arising from special rate incomes, including those under section 111A. However, we find this Firstly, the Finance Bill 2025 itself proposes to insert new restrictions on 27, which implies that the existing law t contain such a restriction. Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum cannot override the plain language of the statute. It is a tool of interpretation, not a source of substantive law. Therefore, the prospective amendment in the Finance Act 2025 supports the view that 25, rebate under section 87A 5.15 In the recent judgment dated 24.01.2025 in the case of The Chamber of Tax HC-2025(Bombay)- based denial of 87A who had opted for 115BAC(1A). While No.1014/Ahd/2025 10 refrained from interpreting the substantive provisions, it held that the assessee must be allowed to claim rebate under section 87A, held that the CPC utility or system configuration cannot override statutory rights, and that each case must be adjudicated on its own judicial authority, are therefore duty- of the statutory framework and not be influenced by 5.16 The assessee has also relied on an appellate order dated 27.05.2025 passed by on identical facts the CIT(A) allowed the claim of rebate under section 87A in respect of STCG taxable under section 111A. We also note that such decision was taken by the JCIT/Addl.CIT(A) relying 25. While not binding, the said appellate order affirms that divergent views exist and such benefit has been allowed 5.17 In view of the above discussion, we find that the assessee is a resident individual and 25 does not exceed Rs.7,00,000. It is also an admitted position that the assessee has exercised the option to be assessed Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 516/Rjt/2025 Padmaben K. Ranapara under the new tax regime in accordance with the provisions of section 115BAC(1A) of the Act. 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 capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at spec 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 assess rebate under section 87A by the CPC, Bengaluru, appears to be based solely on system driven logic and not on any statutory mandate. Moreover, the interpretation adopted by the CIT(A) in upholding such denial is, in our considered v the plain and unambiguous language of the law as applicable for A.Y. 2024 5.18 Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is eligible for rebate under section 87A for A.Y. 2024–25 even though the income includes STCG taxable un AO is directed to allow rebate of Rs.13,320/ The demand of Rs.15,820/ be granted in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed 6. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by ordinate Bench in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana (supra), no change in facts and law and the contrary material to the above no reason to interfere in the said order of the Co respectfully following the binding judgement of the Co the addition, and allow the appeal 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 11/09/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to : under the new tax regime in accordance with the provisions of section 115BAC(1A) of the Act. 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 capital gains arising from transfer of listed equity shares taxable at spec 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. The denial of rebate under section 87A by the CPC, Bengaluru, appears to be based solely on system driven logic and not on any statutory mandate. Moreover, the interpretation adopted by the CIT(A) in upholding such denial is, in our considered view, not in consonance with the plain and unambiguous language of the law as applicable for A.Y. 2024 5.18 Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is eligible for rebate under section 87A for 25 even though the income includes STCG taxable under section 111A. The AO is directed to allow rebate of Rs.13,320/- and recomputed tax liability accordingly. The demand of Rs.15,820/- raised in CPC intimation stands deleted. Refund, if any, shall be granted in accordance with law. appeal of the assessee is allowed” 6. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co ordinate Bench in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana (supra), no change in facts and law and the Ld. DR for the revenue unable to produce any above-said finding of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra). I find no reason to interfere in the said order of the Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, respectfully following the binding judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench the addition, and allow the appeal of the assessee. eal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2025 Sd/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5 under the new tax regime in accordance with the provisions of section 115BAC(1A) of the Act. 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 ment year. The denial of rebate under section 87A by the CPC, Bengaluru, appears to be based solely on system- driven logic and not on any statutory mandate. Moreover, the interpretation adopted by iew, not in consonance with the plain and unambiguous language of the law as applicable for A.Y. 2024–25. 5.18 Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is eligible for rebate under section 87A for der section 111A. The tax liability accordingly. raised in CPC intimation stands deleted. Refund, if any, shall decision of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Jayshreeben Jayantibhai Palsana (supra), and there is revenue unable to produce any ordinate Bench (supra). I find ordinate Bench, therefore, Bench, I delete SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 516/Rjt/2025 Padmaben K. Ranapara  The assessee  The Respondent  CIT  The CIT(A)  DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  Guard File /True copy/ By order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot 6 Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS Printed from counselvise.com "