ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — February 2024

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

ITA 761/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.

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

ITA 765/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.

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

ITA 759/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

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.

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.

MOHAMAD YUSUF ABDULLA KARBHARI,VADODARA vs THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 524/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as the assessee failed to appear and provide explanations for the additions. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal based on the available records and the CIT(A)'s order.

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.

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.

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

ITA 138/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

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.

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.

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.

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

ITSSA 53/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

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.

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

ITSSA 51/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

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.

BHAILALBHAI MAFATLAL PUJARA,MEHSANA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, MEHSANA

ITA 885/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence without exercising his discretion under Rule 46A(2) of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the evidence and adjudicate the issues on merit.

M/S. PALAN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 827/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax's sanction for reopening the assessment was granted mechanically without application of mind, as evidenced by a simple 'Yes'. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction to reopen was bad in law.

ROSELABS POLYMERS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 425/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

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.

RAMLALA CHARITABLE TRUST,VALSAD vs COMMISSION OF INCOME (EXEMPTION) , AHMEDABAD

ITA 830/AHD/2019[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemption)'s order, noting that the assessee's counsel could not controvert the findings regarding excessive religious expenses. Therefore, the trust was not eligible for registration under Section 80G(5).

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs RAJINDERKAUR SARABJITSINGH BAGAI L/H RAJVIT BAGAI, AHMEDABAD

ITA 344/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance should only be made for employee's contributions to PF/ESI, not employer's contributions, as per Supreme Court judgment. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance on late payment of employee's contributions after verifying correct due dates.

SHREE LAHESWAR MAHADEV TRUST,PATAN vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 420/AHD/2022[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemptions) for reconsideration, allowing the assessee another opportunity to submit the required documents. This was done considering that the related application for registration under Section 12A was also pending reconsideration.

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

ITA 146/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the AO's reasons did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also ruled that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) should be computed independently of Section 36(1)(viii).

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 905/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without discussing the merits of the case, as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) should have made necessary inquiries and provided a speaking order.

BABUBHAI RAMANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 904/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without discussing the merits of the case, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits even in ex-parte situations.

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

ITA 145/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the AO's reasons did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also ruled that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) should be computed independently of Section 36(1)(viii).

SANGATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 292/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the explanation that the seller insisted on cash payment is a general one and does not fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that explaining the source of cash is not a valid ground for not invoking Section 40A(3).

THE MEHSANA URBAN CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,MEHSANA vs THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE , MEHSANA

ITA 144/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond four years was invalid as the AO's reasons did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also ruled that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) should be computed independently of Section 36(1)(viii).

TEJABHAI NAGJIBHAI MAKWANA,BANASKANTHA vs THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

ITA 1587/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding the land being agricultural and eligible for exemptions under Sections 54B and 54F needed to be examined. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on these claims.

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA RANCHHODBHAI PATEL, VADODARA

ITA 46/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that if the quantum additions forming the basis of the penalty are deleted by the ITAT, the penalty cannot stand, even if the Revenue has filed an appeal to the High Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order restricting the penalty.

ATUL DINKARRAO DESHMUKH,ANAND vs THE PR.CIT-1, VADODARA

ITA 297/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The assessee's counsel informed the tribunal that they were not pressing the appeal and sought permission to withdraw it. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND ANAND,ANAND vs THE DY.CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 492/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024Remanded

The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(E)'s finding that they lacked jurisdiction to rectify the order. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(E) to consider the rectification application afresh.

SHIKSHAPATRI PRACHARAK ANE CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 385/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly verify the financial obligations for FY 2020-21 and did not adequately consider the trust's objects. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication.

SHRENIK HIRALAL SHAH,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

ITA 1130/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a senior citizen and may not have been aware of the notices. In the interest of justice, the issues were remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

THE JT. CIT(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. SANGANI INDUSTRIES LLP, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 64/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on March 6, 2018, and the assessment was framed under Section 153A. The Department's contention was that incriminating material was found during the search which substantiated that the assessees had obtained accommodation entries. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. (Guj.) 387 ITR 529, which was relied upon by the Department. This decision lays down that an assessment under Section 153A can be made if there is incriminating material found during the search, and it is not necessary for such material to be found from the premises of the assessee. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions primarily on the ground that the incriminating material was found from a third party and not from the assessee's premises, and that Section 153C should have been invoked. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning. The Tribunal found that the AO had made additions based on seized documents that indicated the assessees had received accommodation entries. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions and restored the order of the AO. The specific amounts added were Rs. 3,70,00,000/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 2,30,00,000/- for AY 2017-18.

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD vs DOLPHIN LABORATORIES LTD.,( NOW KNOWN AS INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1297/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding delayed PF contributions, directing a 50% disallowance. For miscellaneous expenses, commission, legal charges, and bad debts, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions. Regarding the cost of land acquisition, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, upholding the CIT(A)'s valuation. However, for capital gains on land sale, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the applicability of Section 50C, partly allowing the Revenue's appeal.

SHIKSHAPATRI PRACHARAK ANE CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 384/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly verify the financial obligations for FY 2020-21 and did not adequately consider the trust's objects. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for proper adjudication.

THE JT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. SANGANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 63/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the search was conducted on March 6, 2018, and the assessment was framed under Section 153A. The Department's contention was that incriminating material was found during the search which substantiated that the assessees had obtained accommodation entries. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. (Guj.) 387 ITR 529, which was relied upon by the Department. This decision lays down that an assessment under Section 153A can be made if there is incriminating material found during the search, and it is not necessary for such material to be found from the premises of the assessee. The CIT(A) had deleted the additions primarily on the ground that the incriminating material was found from a third party and not from the assessee's premises, and that Section 153C should have been invoked. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning. The Tribunal found that the AO had made additions based on seized documents that indicated the assessees had received accommodation entries. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions and restored the order of the AO. The specific amounts added were Rs. 3,70,00,000/- for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 2,30,00,000/- for AY 2017-18.

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the issue regarding Section 80-IB(10) deduction was covered by a previous coordinate bench decision and confirmed by the High Court. The Tribunal also found that the assessment under Section 147 was validly made.

CHARUMATIBEN JITENDRA MEHTA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE JITENDRA NAROTTAMDAS MEHTA,THANE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 961/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty order and the appellate order were unsustainable in law as they were passed against a deceased person. The fact of the assessee's death was known to the revenue authorities.

ASITKUMAR CHIMANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(1)(4) NOW WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 956/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest expense incurred by the assessee was directly connected to the interest income earned on deposits, as the borrowing was necessitated by the inability to recover those deposits. Therefore, the interest expense is eligible for deduction.

VALUE 4 MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES,VADODARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(3), VADODARA (NOW ITO, WARD 3(1)(4), VADODARA), VADODARA

ITA 946/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to prevent miscarriage of justice and ensure the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.

GIDC EDUCATION SOCIETY,GANDHINAGAR vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 741/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the details furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

CHINTAN BHARATBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 678/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's reasons for non-compliance to be genuine. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not justified when reasonable cause for non-response was shown.

SHREE MANEKPUR JAIN SWETAMBER MURTIPOJAK SANGH,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 312/AHD/2023[2023-24]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by not providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the observed mismatch in the name. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

DIPIKABEN ASHWINBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 926/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration paid for the property should be treated as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act.

SHAILESHBHAI KANAIYALAL MEHTA,VADODARA vs THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-3(1), VADODARA

ITA 613/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of passing the assessment order before the compliance date violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for proper adjudication.

SHREEOMSINGH BHAGWANSINGH RAWAT,VADODARA vs THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU PRESENT JURIDICTION THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 514/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for belated deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was not debatable as the Apex Court had already clarified the statutory directives. Therefore, the addition made under Section 143(1) was upheld.

DIVYESHKUMAR L.KACHHIYA,ANAND vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

ITA 1065/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not been heard and the CIT(A) had not passed a reasoned order. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity of being heard.

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the issue regarding Section 80-IB(10) deduction was covered by a previous coordinate bench decision and confirmed by the High Court. The Tribunal also found that the assessment under Section 147 was validly made.

HYFUN FROZEN FOODS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs ITO, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2287/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69 was made on presumption without evidence. The assessee provided evidence of cheque payments for land purchases, which were later cleared by fresh cheques after the original ones were not encashed.