DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. SAVVY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, S. G HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2021/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance after considering the ledgers, vouchers, and supporting evidence. The Tribunal found that the evidence sufficiently established the genuineness and business nexus of the expenditure.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the Ld. CIT(A) that deleted an addition of Rs. 1,21,93,308/- made by the AO. The AO had disallowed the expenses claimed as a loss under "Other Expenses" by the assessee and treated them as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of expenses treated as unexplained under Section 69C, considering the evidence submitted by the assessee? Whether additional evidence was rightly admitted without a remand report?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
For Respondent: Ms. Shrunjal Shah, AR
Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 23.09.2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →