ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2024

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 486/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of whether interest on service tax, VAT, GST, and entry tax paid by the assessee is compensatory or penal in nature to the Assessing Officer for verification. The disallowance on account of interest on TDS was confirmed.

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 485/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of whether interest on service tax, VAT, GST, and entry tax paid by the assessee is compensatory or penal in nature to the Assessing Officer for verification. The disallowance on account of interest on TDS was confirmed.

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1595/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the received payments were paid to NMCE Ahmedabad and was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.

VIVEK PRAHLADBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(10), VADODARA

ITA 370/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to give due weight to the affidavits from the assessee's parents and did not conduct proper verification. The burden of proof lies with the revenue to show the amount is income of the assessee.

CHIRAG BALKRISHNA PATEL,PANCHMAHAL vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-3(1)(2) VADODARA), GODHRA

ITA 283/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, considering the genuine reasons provided. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 484/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of whether interest on service tax, VAT, GST, and entry tax paid by the assessee is compensatory or penal in nature to the Assessing Officer for verification. The disallowance on account of interest on TDS was confirmed.

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 685/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the received payments were paid to NMCE Ahmedabad and was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1594/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the received payments were paid to NMCE Ahmedabad and was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1597/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the received payments were paid to NMCE Ahmedabad and was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1596/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the received payments were paid to NMCE Ahmedabad and was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were found to be justified.

FATEHSINH UDESINH PARMAR,AT. DENA, VADODARA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

ITA 772/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed31 May 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(b) is discretionary and not mandatory. It further held that section 273B provides for the deletion of penalty if a reasonable cause is demonstrated.

HARICHANDRASINH DHARMENDRASINH ZALA,BHAVNAGAR vs ITO, W-1(2), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

ITA 1115/AHD/2023[2011-2012]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2011-2012Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh examination of all evidence, including cash flow statements and cash books, to ensure a fair opportunity for the assessee.

VIJAY KANTILAL VORA,VADODARA vs DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1821/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The core issue revolves around the genuineness of the off-market share transactions and the subsequent claim of LTCG. The Tribunal will examine the evidence presented regarding the purchase and sale of shares.

VIJAY MANUBHAI HIRPARA,AHMEDABAD vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

ITA 296/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was passed without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was also found that the Assessing Officer's original order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

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

ITA 162/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 92CA(3A) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the final assessment order was also deemed time-barred and quashed.

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.(IN CASE OF LIVA HEALTHCARE LTD-NOW AMALGAMATED WITH ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 702/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on free physician samples is wholly and exclusively for business promotion and deleted the addition. This decision was based on previous judgments in the assessee's own case and by the jurisdictional High Court.

PRITESH LALITBHAI PANDYA,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(9), AHMEDABAD

ITA 674/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided new documents including statements of accounts and sale deed details. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of these documents and to decide the case accordingly.

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. INVIDA INDIA PVT.LTD. ( NOW KNOWN AS MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1316/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It found that the IT services, technical support, and maintenance fees were actual costs incurred and reimbursed, and that similar payments had been accepted in prior years. The royalty and customer claims issues were also decided in favor of the assessee based on previous tribunal rulings.

TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LIMITED,VADODARA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF NCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 1080/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that an addition under section 154 requires a mistake apparent from the record and proper verification. The addition of contingent liabilities without verifying if they were debited to the profit and loss account and without providing an opportunity of being heard was incorrect.

TML INDUSTRIES LTD.,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 14/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance and book profit addition, finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments. However, the appeal concerning the ex-gratia payment to farmers was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence.

THE SURAT DISTRICT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,SURAT vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 361/AHD/2024[NA]Status: Disposed30 May 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's claim of not receiving the rejection order. It directed the assessee to file a fresh application under the extended time provided by CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024.

ABHISHEK ASHOKKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 252/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 May 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit from his mother and a cash book, to explain the source of the cash deposit. The AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider this evidence.

BHUMIKA MAHESH PARWANI,AHMEDABAD vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD

ITA 629/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that family arrangements are made to maintain harmony and are not transfers in the conventional sense. Therefore, property received under such an arrangement is not taxable under section 56(2)(x).

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs TAKSHASHILA REALITIES PVT. LTD. (ERSTWHILE YOUNGSTAR INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED), AHMEDABAD

ITA 597/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and followed the principle that if interest-free funds exceed interest-free loans, it's presumed they were used for such loans. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Section 80IB(10) deduction was covered in the assessee's favor by previous rulings.

M/S. PETROFILS CO .OPERATIVE LTD.,,VADODARA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, VADODARA

ITA 1254/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the first issue against the assessee. It held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 57(iii) was justified. The Tribunal noted that while the interest income was taxable under Section 56, the expenses claimed were not demonstrably incurred for the purpose of earning that interest income. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT's earlier order for AY 2004-05, which had directed re-examination of expenses in light of Section 57(iii) and judicial precedents. However, in the subsequent round, the AO confirmed the disallowance, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee had not established the necessary nexus between the expenditure and the interest income, and therefore, the disallowance was upheld. The second issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains on assets held for more than 36 months should be treated as long-term capital gains and taxed at the concessional rate under Section 112(1) of the Act, following various ITAT decisions. The AO was directed to compute capital gains accordingly.

PETROFILS CO- OPERATIVE LTD. ,VADOADARA vs THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

ITA 549/AHD/2020[2007-08]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2007-08Dismissed

The tribunal decided the issue of disallowance of administrative expenses against the assessee, stating that such expenses were not allowable from income assessed as 'Income from Other Sources' as they were not proven to be deductible under Section 57(iii). The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was rendered infructuous.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs JIGNESH HIRALAL SHAHSHAH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 781/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the revisional order under Section 263 was already quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the Revenue's appeal on merits becomes infructuous. The Revenue's contention regarding a pending High Court appeal was not supported by details.

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS CHARTERED ACCOUNTS LLP,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 136/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered the corresponding income to tax and had filed a revised Form 67 before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification.

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. JUBILEE TRADELINK PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 806/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2008-09Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated due to a change of opinion, as all relevant facts were available during the original assessment. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision on merits and upheld the allowance of the short-term capital loss.

MAA BHAVANI SANSTHAN EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 230/AHD/2024[NA]Status: Disposed29 May 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the Commissioner to pass a fresh order if the assessee files a new application in Form 10AB before June 30, 2024, as per the CBDT circular.

CHINMAY IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1111/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that adding the profit from currency derivatives trading again would amount to double taxation. However, due to the ex-parte order from the lower appellate authority, the Tribunal set aside the addition and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits after providing a proper hearing opportunity.

M/S. PETROFILS CO .OPERATIVE LTD.,,VADODARA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, VADODARA

ITA 1253/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the first issue against the assessee. It held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 57(iii) was justified. The Tribunal noted that while the interest income was taxable under Section 56, the expenses claimed were not demonstrably incurred for the purpose of earning that interest income. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT's earlier order for AY 2004-05, which had directed re-examination of expenses in light of Section 57(iii) and judicial precedents. However, in the subsequent round, the AO confirmed the disallowance, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee had not established the necessary nexus between the expenditure and the interest income, and therefore, the disallowance was upheld. The second issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains on assets held for more than 36 months should be treated as long-term capital gains and taxed at the concessional rate under Section 112(1) of the Act, following various ITAT decisions. The AO was directed to compute capital gains accordingly.

JAN AROGYA SEVA TRUST,VALSAD vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 169/AHD/2024[-]Status: Disposed29 May 2024Remanded

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to 30.06.2024. Therefore, the assessee's application filed on 11.02.2023 was within the extended timeline.

MAHESH D.TEKCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1028/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO should have initiated proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after handing over the relevant materials to the assessee's jurisdictional AO, instead of directly initiating proceedings under Section 147.

TAKSHASHILA REALTIES PRIVATE LIMITED (EARSTWHILE YOUNGSTAR INFRACON PVT. LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 601/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and followed the principle that if interest-free funds exceed interest-free loans, it's presumed they were used for such loans. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of Section 80IB(10) deduction was covered in the assessee's favor by previous rulings.

M/S. PETROFILS CO. OPERATIVE LTD.,,VADODARA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, VADODARA

ITA 1273/AHD/2017[2004-05]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2004-05Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the first issue against the assessee. It held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 57(iii) was justified. The Tribunal noted that while the interest income was taxable under Section 56, the expenses claimed were not demonstrably incurred for the purpose of earning that interest income. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT's earlier order for AY 2004-05, which had directed re-examination of expenses in light of Section 57(iii) and judicial precedents. However, in the subsequent round, the AO confirmed the disallowance, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee had not established the necessary nexus between the expenditure and the interest income, and therefore, the disallowance was upheld. The second issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains on assets held for more than 36 months should be treated as long-term capital gains and taxed at the concessional rate under Section 112(1) of the Act, following various ITAT decisions. The AO was directed to compute capital gains accordingly.

SAURASHTRA DASHA MODH VANIK NARANPURA ASSOCIATION,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 149/AHD/2024[-]Status: Disposed29 May 2024Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the rejection order predated a relevant CBDT circular providing an extended deadline. Following the circular, the assessee was directed to file a fresh application within the extended period.

JALPA SAVANKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 348/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable without providing an opportunity for hearing and without considering the explanation of the source of funds. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

PETROFILS CO-OPERATIVE LTD. ,VADODARA vs THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

ITA 547/AHD/2020[2006-07]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2006-07Dismissed

The tribunal decided the issue of disallowance of administrative expenses against the assessee, stating that such expenses were not allowable from income assessed as 'Income from Other Sources' as they were not proven to be deductible under Section 57(iii). The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was rendered infructuous.

M/S. PETROFILS CO .OPERATIVE LTD.,,VADODARA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA

ITA 1255/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed29 May 2024AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the first issue against the assessee. It held that the disallowance of expenses under Section 57(iii) was justified. The Tribunal noted that while the interest income was taxable under Section 56, the expenses claimed were not demonstrably incurred for the purpose of earning that interest income. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT's earlier order for AY 2004-05, which had directed re-examination of expenses in light of Section 57(iii) and judicial precedents. However, in the subsequent round, the AO confirmed the disallowance, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee had not established the necessary nexus between the expenditure and the interest income, and therefore, the disallowance was upheld. The second issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal held that short-term capital gains on assets held for more than 36 months should be treated as long-term capital gains and taxed at the concessional rate under Section 112(1) of the Act, following various ITAT decisions. The AO was directed to compute capital gains accordingly.

DCIT CIRCLE -1 (EXEMPTION) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs NARODA ENVIRO PROJCT LIMITED , AHMEDABAD

ITA 360/AHD/2024[2016 17]Status: Disposed29 May 2024Dismissed

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which held that environmental preservation activities are charitable in nature and not business. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption.

SAKINA AHMEDALI KANTAVALA,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 41/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 144 was invalid as the assessee had filed a return and responded to notices. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) was incorrect in upholding half the addition, as the explanation and affidavits regarding the source of funds were not properly considered.

MARGI DARPAN SHAH,VADODARA vs THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 664/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing the appeal and, considering the substantial additions and the assessee's stated reasons for non-appearance, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

JITO BHAVNAGAR CHAPTER FOUNDATION,BHAVANAGAR vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 103/AHD/2024[-]Status: Disposed28 May 2024Remanded

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10AB to 30.06.2024. Therefore, the assessee's application filed on 27.06.2023 was within the extended timeline.

RASNA PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1788/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has corrected a typographical error in the PAN number of the assessee in its previous order. The order is modified only to the extent of this PAN number correction.

SARJAN REALITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 46/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the value of other services included in the sale consideration and did not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer as required. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO.

ITO, WARD-3(3)(3), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. MAHER COTTON INDUSTRIES, , SABARKANTHA

ITA 1949/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has corrected a typographical error in the PAN number of the assessee in its previous order. The order is modified only to the extent of this PAN number correction.

SMT. NEELU SANJAY GUPTA,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 308/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the assessee's difficult circumstances. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for delay and confirming the addition was set aside.

THE JANTA CO-OP BANK LTD,GODHRA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE ANAND, ANAND, GUJARAT

ITA 147/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The tribunal found that principles of natural justice were not adequately followed due to incorrect communication. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

SARJAN REALITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CICLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 47/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 May 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the value of other services included in the sale consideration and did not refer the matter to the Valuation Officer as required. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO.