ARAKERE CHANNAPPA VISHWANATH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Arakere Channappa Vishwanath, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Earlier: No.37, Mathru Layout, 3rd Cross Ward – 3(2)(1), Gokul Nagar, Bengaluru. Doddakallasandra, Bengaluru – 560 062. PAN – AFPPV 3707 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nagin KIncha CA & Smt. Suman Lunkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 25.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The present appeal filed at the instance of the assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23 is directed against order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal at National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereafter- learned CIT(A)) under the provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereafter-the Act).

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 21

4.1 The AO further observed that search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 15.03.2022. During the course of search and post-search proceedings, information was gathered regarding winnings earned by players using the online gaming portals operated by the said company. The dissemination note reproduced in the assessment order explained that Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. operated gaming portals namely “Rummyculture” and “Gamezy” wherein games such as deal, pool, points, tournaments, fantasy games, rummy and poker were played involving real money transactions.

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 21

4.2 The AO observed that real money as well as bonus amounts were used in the gaming activities and winnings credited to the player’s wallet after deduction of commission by the company constituted the gross winnings of the player. The AO referred to an illustration reproduced in the dissemination note to explain that where two players contribute Rs.100 each and the company deducts 10% commission, the balance amount of Rs. 180 credited to the winner’s account which would constitute gross winnings of the player. According to the AO, the entire amount credited to the winning player represented taxable gaming winnings.

4.3 The AO thereafter referred to the provisions of section 2(24)(ix), section 56(2)(ib), section 115BB and section 58(4) of the Act. The AO observed that winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races including horse races, card games and other games of any sort or from gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever are specifically included within the definition of “income” under section 2(24)(ix) of the Act. The AO further observed that Explanation (ii) to section 2(24)(ix) defines the expression “card game and other game of any sort” to include any game show or entertainment programme played through electronic mode and therefore online gaming winnings also fall within the ambit of taxable income.

4.4 The AO further held that by virtue of section 56(2)(ib) of the Act, such gaming winnings are chargeable under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The AO also referred to section 115BB of the Act and observed that winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, races, card games and other games of any sort are taxable at a flat rate irrespective of normal slab rates. The AO specifically observed that the provisions of section

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 21

58(4) of the Act prohibit allowance of any expenditure, deduction or set off of losses while computing income from such winnings. The AO also relied upon the Finance Act, 1986 commentary and observed that no allowance or deduction is admissible against gross winnings from games. The AO further observed that notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. seeking confirmation regarding the winnings earned by the assessee. In response thereto, the company furnished details confirming that the assessee had earned gross winnings amounting to Rs.2,33,52,271/-. The AO therefore concluded that the assessee had earned gross winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271/- during the relevant financial year and the same had not been offered to tax in the return of income filed by him.

4.5 The AO further observed that notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued calling upon the assessee to explain the gaming transactions and furnish supporting details. However, according to the AO, despite sufficient opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish proper explanation or supporting evidence. The AO noted that the assessee merely furnished bank statements and stated that the increase in receipts was due to online games and that return was filed u/s 44AD of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee failed to rebut the information available with the department and by remaining non-compliant did not deny the veracity of the information received from the investigation wing. Accordingly, the AO held that the amount of Rs. 2,33,52,271/- represented income by way of winnings from online games and liable to be assessed under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The AO further held that no deduction, expenditure or set off of losses was allowable against such winnings and therefore the entire gross amount of Rs. 2,33,52,271/- was liable to be

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 21

taxed u/s 115BB of the Act. The AO therefore added the said amount to the returned income of the assessee and determined the total income at Rs. 2,33,85,071/- only.

6.1 The assessee submitted that during the year, he had maintained an account on the Rummyculture platform. The account reflected deposit of personal funds, game participation entries, promotional incentives, withdrawals and the net result of gaming activity. The assessee explained that Rummy is a game where players participate by contributing entry amounts or buy-in amounts. The gross winnings shown by the platform merely represent the cumulative amount won in individual games before considering the amounts spent for participating in the games and losses suffered in other games. Thus, the gross winnings are not the final income of the player.

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 21

6.2 The assessee further submitted that the reply furnished by M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. itself showed that the total buy-in amount of the assessee was Rs.2,61,51,624/-, whereas the gross winnings were Rs.2,33,52,271/-. Therefore, the net result was a loss of Rs. 27,99,353/-. It was contended that once the information received by the AO from Gameskraft itself showed that the assessee had suffered a net loss, there was no justification for taxing the gross winnings as income. The AO selectively considered only the gross winning figure and ignored the buy-in amount and the net loss disclosed in the very same information.

6.3 The assessee submitted that the AO’s approach is contrary to the basic principle of taxation that only real income can be taxed. The Income- tax Act taxes income and not gross movement of funds or turnover. The gross amount of Rs.2,33,52,271/- was only a movement of money within the gaming wallet and did not represent any real gain in the hands of the assessee. The assessee therefore argued that the addition was made on a hypothetical basis by treating recycled funds and repeated wallet entries as taxable income.

6.4 The assessee also contended that the AO misapplied section 58(4) of the Act. According to the assessee, section 58(4) restricts deduction of expenditure or allowance only after an amount is first established as “income”. It does not authorise the AO to treat gross turnover, gross wallet credits or gross gaming entries as income. The assessee argued that the AO first had to determine the real income or net winnings, if any, and only thereafter section 58(4) could be applied. Since the assessee had

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 21

no net winnings and had in fact suffered a loss, there was no income on which section 58(4) could operate.

6.5 The assessee further submitted that the provisions relating to taxation of online games also support taxation only of net winnings. It was argued that section 194BA, introduced for online games, mandates deduction of tax at source only on net winnings from online games, either at the time of withdrawal or at the end of the financial year as per prescribed computation rules. The assessee contended that if he had really earned net winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271/-, Gameskraft would have deducted TDS on such amount. The fact that no such TDS was deducted supports the assessee’s contention that there were no net winnings.

6.6 The assessee also relied upon the subsequent statutory framework introduced by the Finance Act, 2023 by way of section 115BBJ along with section 194BA of the Act. According to the assessee, these provisions clearly recognise that only net winnings from online games are taxable and not gross wallet movements. The assessee submitted that the formula for determining net winnings considers withdrawals, closing balance, opening balance and deposits, thereby recognising that player deposits and repeated fund circulation must be adjusted before determining taxable income. It was argued that the later amendment only clarifies the correct principle that only net winnings can be brought to tax.

6.7 The assessee further submitted that the CBDT’s own explanation on taxation of game winnings supports the same view. According to the assessee, the CBDT has recognised that what is taxable is the amount actually receivable by the player after reducing the stake placed.

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 21

Therefore, the department itself has understood that taxability arises only on the final net outcome and not on the total volume of transactions undertaken during gameplay.

6.8 The assessee also argued that the AO relied upon the CRIU dissemination note and the reply received from Gameskraft u/s 133(6) of the Act without giving proper opportunity to the assessee to confront and verify the material used against him. The assessee submitted that the addition was made without furnishing meaningful opportunity to examine the information received from Gameskraft and without allowing the assessee to rebut the same effectively. It was therefore contended that the assessment suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.

6.9 The assessee further submitted that the AO wrongly treated online rummy winnings in the same manner as lottery winnings without appreciating the nature of online rummy. It was submitted that rummy involves knowledge, skill, memory, calculation, observation, strategy and decision-making. The assessee however submitted that even assuming that online gaming winnings are covered under section 2(24)(ix) and section 115BB of the Act, only the real net winnings, if any, could be considered for taxation. The gross figure cannot be taxed merely because it appears in platform records.

6.10 The assessee therefore submitted that the addition of Rs. 2,33,52,271/- made by the AO is unsustainable. The figure represents gross wallet credits or gross winnings before adjusting the buy-in amount of Rs. 2,61,51,624/-. Since the net result was a loss of Rs.27,99,353/-, there was no taxable income in the hands of the assessee from online

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 21

gaming. Accordingly, the assessee prayed that the entire addition made by the AO be deleted and the appeal be allowed. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s grounds of appeal and confirmed the finding of the AO by observing as under: 6.3 Ground Nos. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3: The learned Assessing Officer has erred in treating the gross winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271 from online games i.e. Rummy Culture as income of the appellant and adding the same as income of the appellant, the addition as made being wholly erroneous both on facts and law applicable is to be deleted. In any case, the additions having been made in the impugned assessment order are excessive and erroneous. In any case, there being no winnings from online games, the provisions of section 115BB are not applicable to the appellant. 6.3.1 These grounds are on the merits of the addition. The facts are that specific information was received through CRIU that the assessee had winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271/- from online games played on the portal of M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant previous year. To verify this, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) to M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and obtained a detailed player-wise statement. This statement confirmed that during the relevant financial year, the assessee’s gross winnings from the platform were Rs. 2,33,52,271. The assessee has not denied that he was a player on this platform. The assessee has also not claimed that the statement furnished by the portal is fabricated or incorrect. Despite having opportunity, the assessee has not produced any contrary ledger from the portal or any certified record from M/s Gameskraft to dispute the figure of gross winnings. The only reply on record from the assessee is a brief letter referring to bank statements and to filing of return under section 44AD of the Act. That reply does not deal with the CRIU information, does not deal with the 133(6) confirmation and does not explain how the figure of Rs. 2,33,52,271 is wrong. In such a situation, the third-party confirmation obtained from the portal, which maintains the actual records of all games and transactions, is the best and most reliable evidence on record. 6.3.2 On the legal side, section 2(24)(ix) clearly brings within the ambit of income any winnings from lotteries, crossword puzzles, card games and other games of any sort or from gambling or betting of any form or nature whatsoever. Income from such winnings is chargeable to tax under the head “Income from other sources” by virtue of section 56(2) and section 115BB provides a special rate of tax on such winnings. Further, section 58(4) lays down that while computing income by way of such winnings, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance in connection with such income shall be allowed under any provision of the Act. The legislative intent is thus clear that the gross winnings constitute the taxable base and no allowance can be claimed against such winnings. The assessee’s plea that there was no real income or that there were losses cannot be accepted in the absence of strong and specific evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee has computed any net result of his gaming activity or that he has any certified net loss figure from the portal. In fact, the assessee has not even produced any computation legally prepared by himself. In these circumstances, the only ascertainable and legally relevant figure is the

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 21

gross winnings certified by the portal. The Assessing Officer has rightly treated this figure as income of the assessee under section 2(24)(ix) of the Act. 6.3.3 The contention that the provisions of section 115BB do not apply is also without merit. Once it is established that the assessee has income by way of winnings from games as referred to in section 2(24)(ix), section 115BB squarely applies. The argument that there were no winnings is contrary to the material on record. The portal has affirmed that there were winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271. The assessee has failed to rebut this with any cogent proof. The bald assertion made in appeal, unsupported by any ledger or evidence, cannot displace the verified information obtained from an independent third party. The assessee had several opportunities to come forward with gameplay data, session-wise records, transaction logs or any other material to demonstrate that the figure of winnings is not correct or that it does not represent income. His complete failure to do so leads to an adverse inference that the departmental information is correct. I therefore hold that the Assessing Officer was justified, on facts and on law, in treating the gross winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271 as income of the assessee and taxing the same under the special provisions applicable to such winnings. Grounds 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are therefore dismissed. 6.4 Ground No. 4: In any case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE and taxing the additions made at special rate of 60% in the computation sheet annexed to the assessment order. The provisions of section 115BBE being not applicable, the invoking of such section and calculating tax at special rate is bad in law and is to be deleted. 6.4.1 This ground relates to the reference to section 115BBE in the computation sheet. I have examined the body of the assessment order and the computation. In the speaking part of the order, the Assessing Officer has clearly and correctly proceeded on the basis that the income in question is by way of winnings from games falling under section 2(24)(ix) of the Act. He has discussed the relevant provisions including section 2(24)(ix), section 56(2) and section 115BB and has concluded that the winnings are taxable under section 115BB at the prescribed rate. Nowhere in the reasoning portion is section 115BBE invoked or discussed. Section 115BBE deals with taxation of incomes referred to in sections 68 to 69D and is not relevant to winnings from games. It appears that in the preparation of the computation sheet, there has been a mechanical or typographical error in mentioning section 115BBE instead of section 115BB. However, such an error in the computation sheet does not go to the root of the matter when the main assessment order is clear and unambiguous in applying the correct charging provision. The appellate authority is expected to see the substance rather than the form. Here, the substance is that the Assessing Officer has taxed winnings from games under the correct head and with reference to the correct provision, namely section 115BB. 6.4.2 It is also important to note that the assessee has not shown that any prejudice has been caused in the sense of being subjected to a higher rate of tax which is not permissible in law. The correct legal position, as clarified above, is that section 115BB applies to such winnings and the applicable rate is that prescribed under that section. To the extent there is any discrepancy in the rate actually applied in the computation sheet, the same is only an arithmetical or clerical matter which can be corrected in the giving effect stage and does not require annulment or deletion of the addition itself. The existence of such a typographical mistake does not render the assessment invalid. I therefore hold that the reference to section 115BBE in the computation sheet is only a clerical

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 21

error. The substantive addition on account of winnings remains valid and is to be taxed under section 115BB. This ground does not warrant any relief and is dismissed.

12.1 The learned AR further submitted that the Act taxes can be levied only on real income and not gross circulation or recycling of funds within the gaming wallet. It was argued that section 58(4) of the Act merely prohibits deduction of expenditure after determination of income and does not authorise taxation of gross wallet movements as income. The learned AR also placed heavy reliance on the newly inserted provisions of section 194BA, section 115BBJ and Rule 133 introduced by Finance Act, 2023 and submitted that the legislature itself has now recognised that only “net

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 21

winnings” from online games are taxable. It was submitted that the later amendment is clarificatory in nature and therefore applicable even while interpreting section 115BB of the Act for A.Y. 2022-23.

12.2 The learned AR further relied upon CBDT Circular No. 05/2023 dated 22.05.2023 and submitted that the CBDT itself has prescribed a mechanism for determination of net winnings after considering deposits, withdrawals and balances in the gaming wallet. It was contended that if the intention of legislature was to tax gross wallet credits, there was no necessity to introduce a separate mechanism for computation of net winnings. The learned AR also relied upon the decisions of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club and the Delhi Bench in the case of Delhi Race Club to contend that even under the earlier provisions relating to horse race winnings, only real net winnings after adjusting participation cost were considered for taxation and TDS purposes. Accordingly, it was prayed that since the assessee had not earned any net winnings during the year, the addition made by the AO deserved to be deleted.

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 13 of 21

winnings from card games and other games of any sort and section 58(4) of the Act prohibits allowance of any deduction or loss against such winnings. The learned DR therefore submitted that the AO was justified in treating the gross winnings as taxable income and taxing the same under the special provisions applicable to gaming winnings.

14.1 At the outset, we note that the entire addition made by the AO proceeds on the assumption that every amount credited in the gaming wallet during the course of gameplay constitutes taxable income in the hands of the assessee. The AO has proceeded to tax the cumulative gross winnings figure furnished by M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. without examining the corresponding buy-in amounts, repeated circulation of funds, redeployment of w innings in subsequent games and the ultimate net result of the gaming activity. From the materials placed on record, it is evident that the assessee had total buy-in amounts aggregating to Rs. 2,61,51,624/- as against gross winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271/- resulting into a net loss of Rs. 27,99,353/-only. The revenue authorities have not disputed these figures emerging from the very same information obtained from Gameskraft u/s 133(6) of the Act. However, the authorities below selectively adopted only the gross winnings figure

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 14 of 21

while completely ignoring the corresponding participation costs and buy- in amounts embedded in the same transaction stream.

14.2 In our considered opinion, such an approach is contrary to the fundamental concept of “income” under the Act. The Income Tax Act taxes real income and not mere gross transactional movements or recycling of funds within a gaming wallet. Merely because amounts are repeatedly credited and debited during multiple rounds of online gameplay, the same cannot automatically assume the character of taxable income. Unless there is a real gain or accretion to the assessee, no income can be said to arise.

14.3 We further note that the provisions of section 115BB as applicable for the year under consideration used the expression “income by way of winnings”. Similarly, section 194B also contemplated deduction of tax from “income by way of winnings”. Thus, even under the pre-amended scheme, the legislature always intended to tax only the real winnings component and not the gross turnover or gross circulation of money during gameplay. We further note new section being section 115BBJ and section 194BA was inserted vide Finance Act 2023 with respect to wining from online game. These provision uses the phrase “net wining” rather income by way of “wining”. At this junction it is relevant to reproduce the memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 2023 introducing section 194BA and section 115BBJ which reads as under: TDS and taxability on net winnings from online games Section 194B of the Act provides that the person responsible for paying to any person any income by way of winnings from any lottery or crossword puzzle or card game and other game of any sort in an amount exceeding ten thousand rupees shall, at the time of payment thereof, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force.

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 15 of 21

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 16 of 21

(ix) to insert a new section 115BBJ in the Act with regard to tax on winnings from online games to provide that where the total income of an assessee includes any income by way of winnings from any online game, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— • the amount of income-tax calculated on net winnings from such online games during the previous year, computed in the prescribed manner, at the rate of thirty per cent; and • the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the net winnings referred to above; (x) to provide the definition of “computer resource”, “internet”, “online game” in the proposed section 115BBJ.

14.4 A careful reading of the above memorandum clearly shows that the legislature itself noticed practical difficulties in taxing online gaming transactions under the old framework. The memorandum specifically recognised the distinct nature of online gaming and therefore introduced a special mechanism for taxation and TDS on “net winnings” from online games. The newly inserted provisions expressly provide that tax is to be deducted and levied only on “net winnings” computed in the prescribed manner.

14.5 Further, Rule 133 framed pursuant to section 194BA provides a complete computational mechanism for determination of net winnings by considering opening balance, deposits, withdrawals and closing balance in the user account. The CBDT Circular No. 05/2023 dated 22.05.2023 also elaborately explains the methodology for determination of net winnings from online games.

14.6 The circular further clarifies that transfers within user accounts, deposits made by users and repeated circulation of amounts cannot themselves constitute taxable winnings unless there is net accretion in the user account. The mechanism prescribed in Rule 133 proceeds entirely on

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 17 of 21

the principle that only net winnings are taxable and not gross wallet credits.

14.7 In our considered opinion, the subsequent insertion of section 194BA and section 115BBJ does not introduce any fundamentally new principle of taxation. Rather, the amendment merely clarifies and codifies the already existing legislative intent that only real net winnings from online games are chargeable to tax. The amendment was necessitated because the earlier provisions contained no specific computational mechanism for online gaming activities involving continuous deposits, withdrawals, buy-ins, bonus credits and repeated circulation of funds within electronic gaming wallets.

14.8 It is a settled principle of law that a subsequent amendment introduced to remove ambiguity and explain the true legislative intent is clarificatory in nature. In the present case, the newly inserted framework only explains how winnings from online games are to be computed and taxed. Therefore, in our considered view, the principles embedded in section 115BBJ, section 194BA and Rule 133 are clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore throw considerable light on the correct interpretation of section 115BB even for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2022-23.

14.9 We further notice that similar principles have already been recognised by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the context of horse race winnings while interpreting section 194BB and the expression “winnings”. In the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club reported in 114 taxman 82, the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal held that only net winnings after

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 18 of 21

adjusting the investments made by the punter can be considered for the purposes of deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal specifically recognised that “winnings” in common parlance means the amount received in excess of the amount invested by the punter. The relevant observations of the Kolkata Bench are reproduced as under: 11. The matter requires examination from legal angle also. For this purpose, we shall extract the provisions of section 194BB as below : "194BB. Any person, being a bookmaker or a person to whom a licence has been granted by the Government under any law for the time being in force for horse racing in any race course or for arranging for wagering or betting in any race course, who is responsible for paying to any person any income by way of winnings from any horse race in an amount exceeding five thousand rupees shall, at the time of payment thereof, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force :" It is firstly required to be noted in this connection that the expression used in this section is "income by way of winnings". The connotation of "income" necessarily implies the net income after deducting the expense incurred for earning the gross income. There cannot to any doubt about the fact that the cost of purchasing tickets for race which fetches the prize money, must necessarily be deducted to arrive at the net income. Further- more, the legislation has also used the expression "from any horse race" and not "horse races" in plural. It thus means that the income by way of winnings from any particular horse race is required to be taken into consideration. So, one horse race is required to be taken as a unit and the entire money received by way of winnings from the said horse race is first to be considered as the gross income from that horse race, therefrom is required to be deducted the investment made by the punter towards acquiring the tickets, may be more than one, but pertaining to the same horse race. In principle, we, therefore, do not find any hesitation in directing that tax is required to be deducted only from the net income arising out of the horse race to the punter from any particular race after deducting the investments made by the punter in purchasing all the tickets relating to such horse race. The CBDT also accepted the said proposition mostly in its Circular No. 240 as mentioned above. The CBDT, however, directed that investment in such tickets alone which fetched the winnings money should be deducted, we are, however, of the opinion that if all the tickets purchased by a punter in a particular horse race can be linked up together and if there be regular machinery with the Turf Club authorities to take into consideration all the tickets purchased in connection with one horse race, then the entire amount of investment on all the horses irrespective of whether the horse won or lost in that race, should be treated as investment made by the punter in that horse race. However, a note of caution is being recorded in this connection. A claim made by the punter that he had purchased a large number of tickets separately in respect of the same horse race should not be accepted unless such claim can be verified by a process existing in the procedural mechanism of the Turf Club.

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 19 of 21

14.10 Similarly, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Delhi Race Club reported in 17 SOT 39 also followed the above principle and held that the amount invested by the punter in horse races is required to be reduced while computing winnings for TDS purposes u/s 194BB of the Act. The relevant observations of the Delhi Bench are reproduced as under: 11. With regard to the second contention of the learned Authorised Representative regarding deduction of investment made by punters in the horse races, we found that issue stands squarely covered by the decision of Tribunal Calcutta Bench in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club (supra), as follows : "The expression used in section 194BB is income by way of winnings. The connotation of income necessarily implies the net income after deducting the expenses incurred for earning the gross income. There could not be any doubt about the fact that the cost of purchasing tickets for race which fetched the prize money, must necessarily be deducted to arrive at the net income. Furthermore, the legislation has also used the expression ‘from any horse race’ and not ‘horse races’ in plural. It, thus, meant that the income by way of winnings, from any particular horse race is required to be taken, into consideration. So, one horse race is required to be taken as a unit and the entire money received by way of winnings from the said horse race is first to be considered as the gross income from that horse race. Therefrom one is required to deduct the investment made by the punter towards acquiring the tickets, may be more than one, but pertaining to the same horse race. Therefore, tax is required to be deducted only from the net income arising out of the horse race to the punter; from any particular race after deducting the investment made by the punter in purchasing all the tickets relating to such horse race. The CBDT has also accepted the said proposition in its Circular No. 240, but has directed that investment in such tickets alone which fetched the winnings money should be deducted. However, if all the tickets purchased by a punter in a particular horse race club be linked up together and if there be regular machinery with the turf club authorities to take into consideration all the tickets purchased in connection with one horse race, then the entire amount of investment on all the.horses.irrespective of whether the horse won or lost in that race, should be treated as investment made by the punter in that horse race. A claim made by the punter: that he has purchased a large number of tickets separately in respect of the same horse race, should not be accepted unless such claim could be verified by a process existing in the procedural mechanism of the turf club." 12. No decision to the contrary was brought to our notice by learned Departmental Representative during the course of hearing. We are well aware of the judicial precedent that an order passed by the co-ordinate Bench should not be lightly disregarded. In taking this view, we are supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P.) Ltd. [1990] 186 ITR 722 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that it is true that a Bench of two Members must not lightly disregard the decision of another Bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. The rationale of this rule is the. need of continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. As the facts and circumstances of the instant case are in pari materia, respectfully following the proposition laid down by the co-

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 20 of 21

ordinate Bench, the Assessing Officer is directed to reduce the amount of tickets purchased by the punter relating to such horse race.

14.11 Although the above decisions were rendered in the context of horse race winnings, the underlying principle equally applies to online gaming transactions. The common thread running through section 194BB, section 194B, section 194BA, section 115BB and section 115BBJ is that only the real winnings component is intended to be taxed and not the gross circulation of funds.

14.12 The authorities below, in our considered opinion, committed a fundamental error in treating the entire gross wallet credits as taxable income without determining whether the assessee had any real net winnings at all. Once the very information received from Gameskraft itself disclosed that the assessee’s buy-in amounts exceeded the gross winnings, the addition made by the AO becomes wholly unsustainable. We also find considerable force in the assessee’s argument that had there been actual net winnings of Rs. 2,33,52,271/-, the online gaming intermediary itself would have deducted tax at source on such winnings. The absence of TDS itself probabilises the assessee’s contention that there were no net winnings chargeable to tax.

14.13 The reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) on section 58(4) is also misplaced. Section 58(4) merely prohibits deduction of expenditure or allowance while computing income from winnings. However, before invoking section 58(4) of the Act, the authorities must first determine whether there exists any real “income by way of winnings”. The provision does not authorise the department to artificially treat gross transactional entries or recycled gaming funds as income. Accordingly, considering the

ITA No.3016/Bang/2025 Page 21 of 21

totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the legislative framework introduced by Finance Act 2023, Rule 133, CBDT Circular No. 05/2023 and the judicial principles laid down in Royal Calcutta Turf Club and Delhi Race Club, we hold that only real net winnings from online gaming activities can be subjected to tax and not the gross wallet credits or gross winnings reflected during intermediate stages of gameplay.

14.14 Since the material available on record itself demonstrates that the assessee had incurred net loss in the gaming activity after considering the buy-in amounts, there remained no taxable income liable to be assessed u/s 115BB of the Act. The addition of Rs .2,33,52,271/- made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is therefore directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in court on 23rd day of July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SOUNDARARAJAN K) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 23rd July, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore