ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2024

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VADODARA vs SHRI ANIL K. THAKKAR,, BARODA

ITSSA 90/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed16 May 2024AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Development Agreement (DA) dated 25.02.2010 did not amount to a "transfer" under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the DA was an unregistered contract and that only "easement rights" were given, not "possession," which is essential for invoking Section 2(47)(v). The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Jawahar L. Agicha and C. S. Atwal, stating that an unregistered agreement lacks legal validity for invoking Section 2(47)(v). Therefore, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had established its intent to start a business through the DA and had disclosed business income from AY 2011-12 onwards. The conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade was considered a unilateral resolve whose fruition is a function of various factors. The Tribunal agreed that the land was thrown open for the business of development, constituting a joint business enterprise and a categorical expression of intent to convert the land into stock-in-trade. Thus, capital gains were to be taxed under Section 45(2) in the year of actual sale, not under Section 45(1) read with Section 2(47)(v). Ground No. 2 was dismissed. Concerning Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that consideration was received, noting the CIT(A)'s summary that the respondent had not received or withdrawn the entire sale consideration and, in fact, had not received any amount in FY 2009-10. Ground No. 3 was dismissed. All remaining grounds were consequential and dismissed. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VADODARA vs SHRI KANTILAL M. THAKKAR,, BARODA

ITSSA 93/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed16 May 2024AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Development Agreement (DA) dated 25.02.2010 did not amount to a "transfer" under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the DA was an unregistered contract and that only "easement rights" were given, not "possession," which is essential for invoking Section 2(47)(v). The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Jawahar L. Agicha and C. S. Atwal, stating that an unregistered agreement lacks legal validity for invoking Section 2(47)(v). Therefore, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue was dismissed. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had established its intent to start a business through the DA and had disclosed business income from AY 2011-12 onwards. The conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade was considered a unilateral resolve whose fruition is a function of various factors. The Tribunal agreed that the land was thrown open for the business of development, constituting a joint business enterprise and a categorical expression of intent to convert the land into stock-in-trade. Thus, capital gains were to be taxed under Section 45(2) in the year of actual sale, not under Section 45(1) read with Section 2(47)(v). Ground No. 2 was dismissed. Concerning Ground No. 3, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that consideration was received, noting the CIT(A)'s summary that the respondent had not received or withdrawn the entire sale consideration and, in fact, had not received any amount in FY 2009-10. Ground No. 3 was dismissed. All remaining grounds were consequential and dismissed. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI,DEESA vs THE ITO, WARD-2, PALANPUR

ITA 696/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Firstly, Section 50C of the Act is applicable for computing capital gains, which arises in the hands of the seller, not the buyer. Since the assessees are buyers, Section 50C is not applicable. Secondly, the Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as applicable for AY 2012-13, which allowed for additions only if an immovable property was acquired *without* consideration. The property in question was acquired for a consideration, albeit inadequate. The Tribunal noted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was amended by the Finance Act, 2013, effective from April 1, 2014, to include cases of inadequate consideration. The Memorandum explaining the amendment explicitly stated that the existing provision did not cover inadequate consideration and the amendment was prospective. Therefore, the amended provision cannot be extended to AY 2012-13. The Tribunal also found that the addition under Section 69 (unexplained investment) was not sustainable as no show cause notice was issued for it, and the case was reopened for a different issue. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were cancelled.

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1787/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on several grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, weighted deduction for R&D expenses, disallowance of expenses, and commission payments. Some grounds were allowed, some dismissed, and others remanded for further adjudication.

MAUNANG FARMS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4),(NOW ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 110/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was covered by a previous ITAT decision concerning a co-owner. The Tribunal noted that the difference between the declared value and the DVO's value was less than 10%, and applied the proviso to Section 50C retrospectively.

HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESEARCH CENTRE,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 934/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed15 May 2024Remanded

The Tribunal, following a precedent in an identical case, set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The issue was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the relevant CBDT circulars that extended the time limits for filing applications.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2128/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on several grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments, weighted deduction for R&D expenses, disallowance of expenses, and commission payments. Some grounds were allowed, some dismissed, and others remanded for further adjudication.

TWARA DIAM,BHAVNAGAR vs PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 90/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's revision order, finding that the AO failed to properly verify the excess stock and did not apply Section 69A. The AO's assessment was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

THE VEJALPUR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs THE ASSTT. CIT., ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

ITA 1030/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of rectifying the assessment order to substitute Section 69A for Section 269SS, and subsequently applying Section 115BBE, was not permissible under Section 154. The Tribunal noted that the conditions for Section 69A were not satisfied and the enhancement of tax liability through rectification was improper.

STERLING GREENWOODS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD

ITA 342/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot travel beyond the issues for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny. The PCIT cannot exercise powers under Section 263 to review issues not covered by the limited scrutiny without converting it to complete scrutiny.

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs M/S. PARSHWANATH CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1871/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the approved layout plan should be the basis for determining the built-up area for Section 80-IB(10) eligibility, and the assessee's share in the partnership firm was correctly determined as 10% based on the partnership deed.

THE VEJALPUR NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,PANCHMAHAL vs THE ASSTT.CIT., ANAND CIRCLE, , ANAND

ITA 1031/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of rectifying the assessment order to substitute Section 69A for Section 269SS, and subsequently applying Section 115BBE, was not permissible under Section 154. The Tribunal noted that the conditions for Section 69A were not satisfied and the enhancement of tax liability through rectification was improper.

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

ITA 1580/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice and referencing precedents where longer delays were condoned. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) as the additions on which the penalty was based were either deleted or substantially reduced, and the assessee's claims were not found to be inaccurate particulars.

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

ITA 639/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice and referencing precedents where longer delays were condoned. The Tribunal also deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) as the additions on which the penalty was based were either deleted or substantially reduced, and the assessee's claims were not found to be inaccurate particulars.

POOJA DIPEN JOSHI,DEESA vs THE ITO, WARD-2 FORMALY WARD-4, PALANPUR

ITA 856/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed15 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Firstly, Section 50C of the Act is applicable for computing capital gains, which arises in the hands of the seller, not the buyer. Since the assessees are buyers, Section 50C is not applicable. Secondly, the Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as applicable for AY 2012-13, which allowed for additions only if an immovable property was acquired *without* consideration. The property in question was acquired for a consideration, albeit inadequate. The Tribunal noted that Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was amended by the Finance Act, 2013, effective from April 1, 2014, to include cases of inadequate consideration. The Memorandum explaining the amendment explicitly stated that the existing provision did not cover inadequate consideration and the amendment was prospective. Therefore, the amended provision cannot be extended to AY 2012-13. The Tribunal also found that the addition under Section 69 (unexplained investment) was not sustainable as no show cause notice was issued for it, and the case was reopened for a different issue. Consequently, the orders of the CIT(A) were cancelled.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. SURAJ LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 536/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the basis for treating the purchases as bogus no longer survived. This conclusion was reached after examining orders from various judicial authorities, including the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, which absolved M/s. Shah Foils Ltd. of charges of clandestine/unaccounted sales. Similarly, CESTAT orders cleared M/s. Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. of similar charges. The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case, the CESTAT had considered these orders and that the CENVAT credit reversed by the assessee was refunded, indicating that the assessee was absolved of charges related to availing wrong input credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for making any addition of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee. All additions made were directed to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

M/S. SURAJ LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 516/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the basis for treating the purchases as bogus no longer survived. This conclusion was reached after examining orders from various judicial authorities, including the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, which absolved M/s. Shah Foils Ltd. of charges of clandestine/unaccounted sales. Similarly, CESTAT orders cleared M/s. Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. of similar charges. The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case, the CESTAT had considered these orders and that the CENVAT credit reversed by the assessee was refunded, indicating that the assessee was absolved of charges related to availing wrong input credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for making any addition of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee. All additions made were directed to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

M/S. SURAJ LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 515/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the basis for treating the purchases as bogus no longer survived. This conclusion was reached after examining orders from various judicial authorities, including the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, which absolved M/s. Shah Foils Ltd. of charges of clandestine/unaccounted sales. Similarly, CESTAT orders cleared M/s. Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. of similar charges. The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case, the CESTAT had considered these orders and that the CENVAT credit reversed by the assessee was refunded, indicating that the assessee was absolved of charges related to availing wrong input credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for making any addition of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee. All additions made were directed to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. SURAJ LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 447/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the basis for treating the purchases as bogus no longer survived. This conclusion was reached after examining orders from various judicial authorities, including the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, which absolved M/s. Shah Foils Ltd. of charges of clandestine/unaccounted sales. Similarly, CESTAT orders cleared M/s. Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. of similar charges. The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case, the CESTAT had considered these orders and that the CENVAT credit reversed by the assessee was refunded, indicating that the assessee was absolved of charges related to availing wrong input credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for making any addition of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee. All additions made were directed to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. SURAJ LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 446/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the basis for treating the purchases as bogus no longer survived. This conclusion was reached after examining orders from various judicial authorities, including the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, which absolved M/s. Shah Foils Ltd. of charges of clandestine/unaccounted sales. Similarly, CESTAT orders cleared M/s. Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. of similar charges. The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case, the CESTAT had considered these orders and that the CENVAT credit reversed by the assessee was refunded, indicating that the assessee was absolved of charges related to availing wrong input credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for making any addition of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee. All additions made were directed to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. SURAJ LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 543/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the basis for treating the purchases as bogus no longer survived. This conclusion was reached after examining orders from various judicial authorities, including the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, which absolved M/s. Shah Foils Ltd. of charges of clandestine/unaccounted sales. Similarly, CESTAT orders cleared M/s. Sunrise Stainless Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Sunrise Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. of similar charges. The Tribunal also noted that in the assessee's own case, the CESTAT had considered these orders and that the CENVAT credit reversed by the assessee was refunded, indicating that the assessee was absolved of charges related to availing wrong input credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification for making any addition of bogus purchases in the hands of the assessee. All additions made were directed to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 528/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 522/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 530/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA vs ALIKRAFT ENGINEERS PVT LTD, VADODARA GUJARAT

ITA 975/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, accepting the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. The Revenue can seek restoration if the circular is inapplicable.

SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 540/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 539/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 538/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 537/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 534/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 533/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 532/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 531/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI DHRUV BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 529/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 527/AHD/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 526/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 525/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 524/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 523/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

MAHENDRABHAI SHANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 521/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel (IT(SS)A Nos. 521 to 527/Ahd/2019) as not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee had died during the pendency of the appeals, and despite multiple adjournments, his legal heirs were not brought on record, nor was a revised Form No. 36 filed. The Tribunal stated that it could not adjudicate an appeal concerning a deceased person without the legal heirs being properly impleaded. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A Nos. 528 to 534/Ahd/2019 and the appeals filed by the assessee Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel in IT(SS)A Nos. 537 to 540/Ahd/2019 were also dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the additions in these latter appeals were made on a protective basis, and since the main appeals of Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel were dismissed as not maintainable, these consequential appeals also stood dismissed. The Department was granted liberty to recover tax dues from the respective assessees as per law. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions concerning Dhruv Bhupendrabhai Patel.

LAXMAN GYANPITH FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1117/AHD/2023[NA]Status: Disposed14 May 2024Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and submit all required documents. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully.

M/S. RUDRA CONSTRUCTION,VADODARA vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

ITA 803/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The tribunal rectified the typographical error. The last sentence of paragraph 8 on page 6 of the original order should be read as 'All the grounds are allowed' instead of 'All the grounds are dismissed'.

ROHIT MISHRA,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

ITA 879/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had not considered the correlation between cash deposits and payments from bank accounts with the profit and loss account. It directed a fresh assessment to verify if the return was filed under section 44AD and to consider allowable expenditures.

RINJU ADITYAKUMAR GOGOI L/H OF LATE ADITYA KUMAR GOGOI,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 393/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, despite the Assessing Officer being informed of the death and the legal heir participating in the proceedings, is invalid in law. The assessment order is liable to be quashed.

PARUL UNIVERSITY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION,VADODARA vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

ITA 69/AHD/2024[-]Status: Disposed14 May 2024Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the rejection of 80G registration and restored the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh consideration. This was done in the interest of natural justice and to allow the Commissioner to examine the Trust's activities.

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 84/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a representative assessee, is liable to pay tax if the owners fail to do so. However, considering the alternative claim for the cost of acquisition, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 83/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 May 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee, as a representative assessee, is liable to pay tax if the owners fail to do so. However, considering the alternative claim for the cost of acquisition, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

ASAHI SONGWON COLORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAVAN, AHMEDABAD

ITA 710/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 May 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was confirmed as the assessee had earned exempt income and made no disallowance. However, the disallowance of Rs. 1,07,897/- related to allocation of common expenses to an eligible unit under Section 80IA was deleted.

MUKESH SUMERMAL SANGHVI,A GR GORAGANDHI PALACE MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 794/AHD/2023[2010-2011]Status: Disposed10 May 2024AY 2010-2011Allowed

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not pertaining to the assessment year in question or were supported by documentary evidence like stock registers and banking channel payments. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable.

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. ZINZUWADIA & SONS, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 50/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 May 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding of rejecting the books of account and making a GP addition of Rs. 96,00,000/- was not disturbed, as the assessee's counsel could not advance convincing arguments against it. Similarly, concerning the addition for excess stock, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 96,00,000/- (telescoped against GP addition), as it was based on factual findings of excess stock found during the survey. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had been reasonable in allowing relief where excess stock was explained. The ratio is that where a survey reveals excess stock and discrepancies in books, and the assessee fails to provide cogent reasons for GP variations or credible explanations for unexplained investments, additions based on these findings are sustainable.