NIMA SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 70/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 March 2026AY 2013-141 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that an amount of Rs. 27,40,000/- was considered twice by the Revenue and directed the JAO to rectify this under Section 154. The assessee was also directed to furnish reconciliation for TDS credit to the JAO.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The primary grounds of appeal related to alleged errors by the CIT(A) in assessing total income, granting TDS credit, and calculating interest under Section 244A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, in the calculation of total income, in granting TDS credit, and in allowing interest under Section 244A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 244A,Section 244A(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER PER DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2013- 14.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in points of law and facts.

2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has Nima Specific Family Trust, A.Y. 2013-14 grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant stating that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable in law. 3 In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not adjudicated ground of the appellant against determining total income at Rs. 4,09,24,570/- instead of Rs 3,81,84,570/- as per return of income due to duplicate addition of short term capital gain of Rs. 27,40,000/-.

4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not adjudicated ground of the appellant against granting TDS credit for Rs. 61,39,836/-instead of claim of Rs 62,05,622/-, thereby the same was short granted by Rs. 65,786/-.

5. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not adjudicated ground of the appellant against short granting interest u/s. 244A of 1.T. Act.

6. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not adjudicated ground of the appellant against not granting interest u/s. 244A(1A) of I.T. Act.”

3.

The amount of Rs. 27,40,000/- has been considered by the Revenue twice, hence there is a need to rectify the figure. Hence, the JAO is hereby directed to rectify the order u/s. 154.

4.

With regard to ITD credit which is to be given as reflected in the 26AS. The assessee is hereby directed to furnish the re-conciliation before the JAO who shall examine the re-conciliation as to whether the entire receipts have been offered to tax over a period of time and then accord the benefit accordingly.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →