ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — February 2024

SHREE JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPOJAK TAPGACHCHA SANGH,VIRAMGAM vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 455/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to section 2(15) as they were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. It also ruled that the denial of exemption solely for not e-filing Form 56F with the return was not justified, as it was filed during assessment proceedings.

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to section 2(15) as they were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. It also ruled that the denial of exemption solely for not e-filing Form 56F with the return was not justified, as it was filed during assessment proceedings.

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to section 2(15) as they were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. It also ruled that the denial of exemption solely for not e-filing Form 56F with the return was not justified, as it was filed during assessment proceedings.

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to section 2(15) as they were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. It also ruled that the denial of exemption solely for not e-filing Form 56F with the return was not justified, as it was filed during assessment proceedings.

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to section 2(15) as they were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. It also ruled that the denial of exemption solely for not e-filing Form 56F with the return was not justified, as it was filed during assessment proceedings.

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs THE ACIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was covered by previous decisions and the jurisdictional High Court. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added for computing book profit under Section 115JB.

HARSHIL RAMAKANT DALAL,AHMEDABAD vs THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 81/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, assessments under Section 153A of the Act can only be disturbed if incriminating material pertaining to the year under consideration is found. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee admitted to making bogus donations in FY 2018-19 (AY 2019-20) in a statement recorded under Section 132(4), no such incriminating document was found for the years under dispute (AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2017-18). Citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.*, which agreed with the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material, the Tribunal ruled that the assessment for these unabated years could not be disturbed. Furthermore, following the Delhi High Court's decision in *CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd.*, the Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material for unabated assessment years. Consequently, no addition could be made on account of bogus donations without incriminating documents. The additions were set aside, and the AO was directed to delete them. The appeals for all three assessment years were allowed.

SEEMA SUKETU SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 801/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12Remanded

The tribunal quashed the ex parte appellate order as it was not speaking and reasoned. It provided the assessee with an opportunity to present their case afresh before the First Appellate Authority.

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities did not fall under the proviso to section 2(15) as they were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. It also ruled that the denial of exemption solely for not e-filing Form 56F with the return was not justified, as it was filed during assessment proceedings.

JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY,VADODARA vs THE ADIT CPC, BENGLURU

ITA 312/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for late payment of employee's PF and ESI contributions is valid. The decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that such contributions must be deposited by the due date for deduction.

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. DESAI IMPEX PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 25/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Dismissed

The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal found the Revenue's ground frivolous as the Revenue failed to produce any order from the Hon'ble Apex Court staying proceedings on the identical issue. For Ground No. 2, concerning the addition of Rs. 18,99,178/- for unexplained entries, the Tribunal noted that the loose papers were petty cash books of the assessee and its sister concerns, and the entries matched the assessee's main audited cash book. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the entire addition in the assessee's hands for transactions related to sister concerns and that the Revenue failed to provide corroborative evidence of unaccounted transactions. Therefore, the deletion of this addition was upheld. For Grounds 3, 4, and 5, the Tribunal found that these issues also flowed from the basic observations of the CIT(A) and that the deletions made by the CIT(A) were without ambiguity, thus upholding the deletions. Grounds 6 and 7 were considered general. The Tribunal held that the AO could not make an addition in the assessee's hands for transactions related to sister concerns without corroborative evidence, especially when the entries matched the audited books.

SEEMA SUKETU SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 800/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Remanded

The tribunal quashed the ex parte appellate order as it was not speaking and reasoned. It provided the assessee with an opportunity to present their case afresh before the First Appellate Authority.

NABROS TRANSPORT PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 559/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the impact of the Covid pandemic on the assessee's ability to respond and did not adjudicate on the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

JAIPRAKASH CHOUDHARY,VADODARA vs THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 310/AHD/2022[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for late payment of employee's PF and ESI contributions is valid. The decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that such contributions must be deposited by the due date for deduction.

JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY,VADODARA vs THE ADIT CPC, BENGLURU

ITA 311/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for late payment of employee's PF and ESI contributions is valid. The decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling and Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that such contributions must be deposited by the due date for deduction.

GOPINATH BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 760/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the loan creditors, including bank statements and confirmations. It also found that the disallowances for depreciation and foreign travel expenses were not justified as the assessee had provided supporting details.

SUGANDH SAHIL GUPTA,BHAVNAGAR vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(5), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 1050/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a further opportunity to be heard and to consider additional evidence.

SWAMI SUNYANAND JANSEVA TRUST,BANASKANTHA vs THE CIT-EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

ITA 390/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024Remanded

The Tribunal held that Section 80G(5B) allows for expenditure of a religious nature up to 5% of total income. The CIT(E) did not examine this aspect. Therefore, the matter was restored for de-novo consideration.

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

ITA 389/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue, especially when all details were provided and the issue was debatable. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

KARIA HARESHBHAI BHAGWANDAS HUF,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 175/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

YADUNANDAN EDUCATION CHARITABLE TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), AHEMDABAD

ITA 861/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to explain the issue of two trust deeds. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.

VIRAL RAJENDRA PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1., AHMEDABAD

ITA 534/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT misinterpreted Section 54F. The assessee had purchased land for construction of a house, for which the law provides a three-year period for construction, not purchase.

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

ITA 386/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue, especially when all details were provided and the issue was debatable. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

ITA 388/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue, especially when all details were provided and the issue was debatable. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

ITA 379/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue, especially when all details were provided and the issue was debatable. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

BALEX PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

ITA 47/AHD/2022[2006-07]Status: Disposed28 Feb 2024AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal held that the issue of interest disallowance is directly related to the determination of the nature of the unsecured loan in AY 2005-06. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration along with the decision for AY 2005-06.

DEEP ADDITIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3) PREVIOUSLY WARD- 1(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 929/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation genuine. It set aside the NFAC's ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh, reasoned order after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs RAJESHRI AVAS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 758/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was deleted by the Tribunal in a separate appeal, the penalty lost its force. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, partly allowing some and dismissing others. Specifically, the revenue's appeals regarding depreciation, weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), and deductions under sections 80G and 80GGB were dismissed. However, an appeal concerning additions to book profit under section 115JB was partly allowed in favor of the revenue.

HYDERABAD YADGIRI TOLLWAY PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT -1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 371/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte revision order passed by the PCIT. It directed the PCIT to pass a fresh order after providing one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and documents.

PARTH PRAGATI MANDAL,SABARKANTHA vs THE ITO(EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

ITA 882/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the late filing due to the employee's unexplained absence. The Tribunal also found the mistake in filing the wrong ITR form to be genuine and inadvertent.

ROHTAK HISSAR TOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

ITA 372/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte revision order passed by the PCIT. It directed the PCIT to pass a fresh order after providing one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and documents.

MUKESH TRENDS LIFESTYLE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 828/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the company provided funds for the car purchase and it was reflected in its books, it should be considered the beneficial owner. Therefore, depreciation could not be denied, especially as interest and insurance expenses were allowed.

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1884/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issues concerning corporate guarantee charges and weighted deduction for scientific research were decided in favor of the assessee in previous years and followed the same. The addition to book profits under Section 115JB for Section 14A disallowance was also directed to be deleted.

THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs SHRI ALPESHKUMAR RASIKLAL LAKHANI,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2903/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the AO failed to provide material evidence to rebut the assessee's claim and that the partnership firms had already disclosed this income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

SMT. VARSHABEN PARAS JANI(L.H. OF SHRI PARAS CHUNILAL JANI),AHMEDABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 536/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, especially after knowledge of the death, is non-est in the eyes of law and therefore liable to be quashed. It was further noted that Section 292BB of the Act, concerning curable mistakes, does not apply to the finalization of assessment in the name of a deceased.

M/S. N. K. INFRASTRUCTURE,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 872/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits after the assessee files a proper condonation petition.

DHIRUBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs PCIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 246/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined the issue of cash deposits and found the source explained from cash withdrawals and opening balance, supported by documents. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the PCIT's revisionary order was set aside.

ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA vs RAJ CONCRETE, NEAR IOC

ITA 876/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicability of the CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable based on the tax effect.

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 139/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing genuine hardship and misguidance from the previous consultant. It also held that additions under section 153A require incriminating material found during a search, which was absent in this case.

ROSELABS POLYMERS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 28/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. This was primarily due to the assessee's persistent absence and failure to prosecute the appeals despite numerous opportunities and notices. The Tribunal also noted a significant delay in filing one of the appeals without a condonation petition.

RAVINDRABHAI LAKSHMANRAV MANE,AHMEDABAD vs ITO, WARD-5(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 52/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the assessee had demonstrated a reasonable cause due to the misrepresentation by the former tax consultant, which led to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's decision in Jayvantsinh N. Vaghela vs. ITO, which held that appeals should generally be decided on merits and not dismissed on technical grounds like delay unless gross negligence or mala fide intention is proven. The Tribunal also noted that the absence of an affidavit from the former consultant was not a bar to condonation, as per the Gujarat High Court's ruling. Regarding the additions made under section 153A, the Tribunal deleted the additions of Rs. 7,50,000/-, Rs. 10,41,000/-, and Rs. 10,00,000/- for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2013-14, respectively. This was based on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., which held that in completed assessments, no addition can be made under section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during search or requisition. Since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2010-11 and 2013-14 was also deleted as it had no basis.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. ORIENTAL PROSPECTING CO., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 77/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the seized material indicated unaccounted sales of Rs. 1,40,500/-. The AO extrapolated this ratio (54.5%) to the total reported sales of Rs. 3 crores, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,63,89,591/-. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal relied on the principle that extrapolation of unaccounted sales from limited seized material to the entire sales declared in the books of account is not permissible without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Shri Pushkar Construction Co., which held that findings of incriminating material for certain assessment years cannot be extrapolated to another assessment year in the absence of corroborative material. The Tribunal also referred to a Kolkata Tribunal decision in Fort Project (P.) Ltd. where extrapolation of on-money receipts to other projects without supporting evidence was held unsustainable. The Tribunal observed that no unaccounted purchases were found, and if the AO's view were true, the net profit would be exorbitant. Furthermore, no movable or immovable assets were found during the search that could be attributed to such hypothetical receipts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was considered unjustified.

PRATIBHABEN ANANDBHAI PANDYA,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 809/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that filing a return of income is compulsory for claiming exemption under Section 54EC. Therefore, the disallowance of the exemption by the Assessing Officer and confirmation by the CIT(A) was upheld.

MAHESHBHAI PRABHUDAS GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 760/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee had provided a reply and established compliance. The penalty under Section 271F was also quashed, finding the assessee's belief about not needing to file a return due to estimated income below the taxable limit to be reasonable.

ITO, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI MUKESH N SHAH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 477/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made a prima facie addition solely based on the assessee being an introducer, without evidence that the funds belonged to the assessee. Since no substantive addition was made in the cases of the other entities, the protective addition could not be sustained as substantive.

MAHESHBHAI PRABHUDAS GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 762/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee had provided a reply and established compliance. The penalty under Section 271F was also quashed, finding the assessee's belief about not needing to file a return due to estimated income below the taxable limit to be reasonable.

MAHESHBHAI PRABHUDAS GANDHI,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 766/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) as the assessee had provided a reply and established compliance. The penalty under Section 271F was also quashed, finding the assessee's belief about not needing to file a return due to estimated income below the taxable limit to be reasonable.

SARA SUPPLIERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 432/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill is allowable if it is acquired for a cost. However, in this case, the goodwill arose from a revaluation of shares and not from a direct purchase, thus no cost was incurred by the assessee for it. Therefore, depreciation was not allowed.