RAJIV LAXMAN DALAL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2559/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 March 2026AY 2015-2016Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1, finding that the assessee had established its onus for claiming LTCG. Ground No. 2 was also allowed, as the commission income was admitted and taxes paid, and the AO could not make it an addition. Ground No. 3 was partly allowed, with a direction to the AO to re-examine the STCG reconciliation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2015-16, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions pertained to Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), commission income, and Short Term Capital Gains (STCG).

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding LTCG, commission income, and STCG were justified based on the evidence and principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Bharat S. Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 29-10- 2025 passed by Addl/JCIT(A), Udaipur for assessment year 2015-16

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 10,02,085 u/s. 68 of the Act for LTCG claimed exempt by the appellant. The addition is vitiated by breach of natural justice and by reliance on generic investigations/third-party material not confronted to the appellant; the finding is perverse and deserves to be deleted.

2.

On facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 3,20,000 being commission income by ignoring the revised computation of income submitted during the assessment proceedings. The addition is vitia

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →