Loading ITAT cases…
14,659 tribunal orders from the Ahmedabad bench.
Counted from the judgments of this bench on BharatTax. The figure is how many of them cite each decision.
Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.
An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.
Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.
Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.
A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.
Income arising from a cooperative society's surplus funds invested in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to the society's core activities and, therefore, is not eligible for exemption under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.
For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.
An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.
Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.
Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.
The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.
When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.
Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.
An assessee discharges the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits by providing creditor details like PAN and addresses, proving creditworthiness via banking transactions, and demonstrating genuineness, especially when loans are repaid through cheques.
In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.
For reassessment proceedings, the 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment must be based on some material and not mere suspicion, establishing a live link between the information and the belief. Furthermore, for reassessment beyond four years, there must be a specific finding of the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.
No disallowance under section 14A can be made while computing book profits under section 115JB unless the expenditure is debited to the profit and loss account and satisfies clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2).
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 92,12,400/-, the Tribunal found that the AO made the addition without conducting adequate inquiry into the details submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) had rightly admitted additional documentary evidence under Rule 46A(1)(a) of the IT Rules, 1962, as the assessee had shown sufficient cause for not submitting them during assessment. Crucially, the AO did not utilize the opportunity provided during the remand proceedings to conduct necessary inquiries or verify the forwarded details. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Since the AO did not controvert the nature of the assessee's business activity or the fund transfers to booking agencies, and no material was brought on record to demonstrate unexplained sources of income, the addition could not be sustained. The cash deposits were demonstrably linked to client advances for ticket bookings. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld. Consequently, Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the admission of additional evidence and the lack of a supplementary remand report were rendered infructuous. The assessee's cross-objection, which argued for the non-applicability of Section 68, was dismissed as infructuous because the CIT(A) had already deleted the entire addition, and the Tribunal had upheld this deletion, granting complete relief to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that there was no effective representation of the Assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded any finding that the cash purchases were not part of the Assessee's books of account. The Assessee claimed that the addition of Rs. 7,60,000 was business income already disclosed under PAN ABVPA8714F. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the interests of justice would be served by giving the Assessee an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the Assessee. The Assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and supporting documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before it, accepting the assessee's submission that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control, including issues with consultant-controlled communication and lack of effective knowledge. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant assessment year and that the AO had arrived at the sale consideration and the assessee's share based on inquiries. However, the Tribunal found that the entire sale consideration could not be added without considering the cost of acquisition, date of acquisition, and details of improvements, supported by evidence, which are crucial for correct capital gains computation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it was just and necessary to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and correct computation of capital gains. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details without fail. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this course of action. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was not maintainable. The judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri distinguished between a simple intimation under Section 143(1) and an intimation with adjustments. It was held that no appeal lies against a simple intimation. In the present case, the intimation dated 10.12.2020 was processed without any adjustment. Therefore, the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not a valid appealable order under Section 246 of the Act. The Tribunal also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in CIT vs. Prem Jain Motors (P.) Ltd., which stated that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be availed if no provision for appeal exists. Since the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not maintainable, the grounds raised by the assessee, and consequently the present appeal before the Tribunal, were dismissed as not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the issue of maintainability was not deliberated in the judgments relied upon by the assessee, and therefore, even if the assessee's claims on merits were agreed with, relief could not be granted.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without addressing the merits. While ordinarily, the matter would be restored to the CIT(A), the Tribunal observed that documents filed in the paper book had not been presented to the AO. The Tribunal reasoned that the AO would need to examine these documents for a remand report, and since the AO had not had an opportunity to examine the relevant documents for determining the assessee's income, it was deemed fit to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after the assessee submits all relevant documents and evidence. The assessee was directed to diligently pursue the matter with the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The Tribunal noted that the investigation material, statements recorded under Section 132(4), bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party demonstrated that the donation was an accommodation entry. The Tribunal relied on the findings that the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) was involved in a bogus donation scam, with its founder and party presidents admitting to such activities. The Tribunal also referred to the statements of Smt. Sandhya Singh and Shri Bishwajeet Singh, who confirmed the party's involvement in bogus donations and the return of funds after commission. The Tribunal concluded that mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts could not override the overwhelming evidence of the party's engagement in providing accommodation entries. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order affirming the disallowance. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, holding that it goes to the root of the matter and can be adjudicated on the basis of facts already on record. The Tribunal noted that the return was filed during the financial year 2016-2017, ending on 31/03/2017. Therefore, as per the Proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had time until 30/09/2017 to issue the notice. However, the notice was served on 19/12/2017, which is beyond this period. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Panorama Builders (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that Section 292BB of the Act cannot enlarge the statutory period for issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). Consequently, the notice issued under Section 143(2) and the subsequent Assessment Order dated 15/12/2018 were quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the nature and extent of agricultural activities, ownership of land, agricultural produce, sale proceeds, and expenses incurred require proper verification with documentary evidence. It noted that the assessee furnished additional details during appellate proceedings, but the claim for agricultural expenses was disallowed by the CIT(A) partly because they were not separately reflected in Schedule EI of the ITR. The Tribunal found that the claim for agricultural expenses cannot be decided solely on the disclosure method in the return without examining supporting evidence and its nexus with agricultural activities. It also stated that the applicability of Section 68 and the sustainability of the addition thereunder must be examined in light of the facts and statutory provisions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh examination and adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the agricultural income, supporting evidence, sale proceeds, agricultural expenses, and the applicability of Section 68, considering the enhancement made by the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant documents and explanations to the AO.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not effectively represented before the AO and the CIT(A). Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be best served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with due opportunity. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and supporting documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings. The primary ground for allowing the appeal was the invalidity of the reassessment notice due to being barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the original notice under Section 148 was issued on 24.06.2021. After the information was supplied on 27.05.2022, and considering the statutory two-week period for reply and the remaining six days under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), the limitation for issuing a fresh notice under Section 148 expired on 21.06.2022. However, the Assessing Officer issued the order under Section 148A(d) and the fresh notice under Section 148 on 28.07.2022, which was beyond the surviving period of limitation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's decision in Vinodkumar Rughnathbhai Koringa, which held that reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving period of limitation are invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed, and all consequential proceedings were also set aside. The remaining grounds challenging the additions on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the validity of reopening under Section 147, the Tribunal found that the assessment was reopened based on information from the Investigation Wing concerning a search in the Swati Group. The Assessing Officer alleged accommodation entries against cash payments. The assessee provided documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and income-tax return acknowledgements of lenders, to support the claim of genuine unsecured loans received and repaid through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the AO was required to establish accommodation entries with reliable corroborative material, which was lacking. The documentary evidence presented by the assessee supported their explanation of genuine unsecured loans. The Tribunal also found that the amounts were repaid even before the date of the search that led to the reopening. Consequently, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as the statutory conditions were not met. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue were allowed, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable on the ground of low tax effect. It was noted that the tax effect involved was Rs. 27,30,000/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 Lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Revenue's representative could not provide any justification for filing the appeal under the exceptional clauses of the circular. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. As a result of the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the procedural issues raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. It was noted that the assessee had consistently intended to be assessed under the new tax regime, as evidenced by his original return and the Tax Audit Report. The filing of Form No. 10-IEA was accepted as an inadvertent clerical error. The Tribunal found it significant that the assessee had approached the competent authority under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay, which was granted, and subsequently filed a revised return opting for the new tax regime. Citing the Gujarat High Court's decisions in Mayur Foundation and S.R. Koshti, the Tribunal stated that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment proceedings and that the correct tax liability must be determined in accordance with law. Therefore, the subsequent condonation of delay and filing of the revised return were considered relevant for determining the correct tax liability. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessee's claim for taxation under section 115BAC was allowed.