ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2024

HANSABEN MAHENDRAKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 295/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made adequate inquiries during the assessment proceedings and considered all the details submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263 by the PCIT was not justifiable as it was based on a change of opinion.

BLACK ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 438/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had properly verified the issues regarding interest expenditure and Section 14A disallowance. The PCIT's action under Section 263 was deemed an attempt to obtain a second opinion, which is not permissible.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs CHHAGANLAL DALAJI SONI, AHMEDABAD

ITA 531/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the assessee had maintained proper books of accounts, provided supporting documentation, and demonstrated consistent GP/NP ratios with prior years. The AO failed to provide a rational basis or comparable cases to justify disturbing the declared profits.

KESHAVLAL CHATURDAS PATEL,MEHSANA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, MEHSANA

ITA 667/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to consider the assessee's reply and supporting documents uploaded on the e-proceedings portal, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

RAMILABEN DINESHBHAI MORADIYA,VADODARA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

ITA 1095/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration in the interest of justice, despite the assessee's consistent non-compliance. A nominal cost was imposed on the assessee.

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 293/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of depreciation on assets reduced by capital grants to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For interest income, the matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on High Court orders. The eligibility for additional depreciation was also remanded for verification of amended provisions.

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1073/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough verification of all aspects, including leave encashment, Section 80IE deduction, and channel partner expenses. The PCIT's differing opinion did not make the assessment order erroneous.

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

ITA 271/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of depreciation on assets reduced by capital grants to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For interest income, the matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on High Court orders. The eligibility for additional depreciation was also remanded for verification of amended provisions.

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1095/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted crucial documents for the first time before it, which were not examined by the lower authorities. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying these documents.

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 292/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of depreciation on assets reduced by capital grants to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For interest income, the matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on High Court orders. The eligibility for additional depreciation was also remanded for verification of amended provisions.

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

ITA 270/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of depreciation on assets reduced by capital grants to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. For interest income, the matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on High Court orders. The eligibility for additional depreciation was also remanded for verification of amended provisions.

ADANI WILMAR LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 777/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's observation that the guarantee income was not properly examined was not justifiable. The notional guarantee income, charged from a joint venture, increased the investment cost and could not be treated as actual income. The AO had verified this and no revenue loss occurred.

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 66/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 50/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

SHRI KIRANKUMAR RASIKLAL SANGHVI,DEESA vs THE PR.CIT-4,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 179/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's findings were not sustainable as there was no valid basis to consider the properties as 'residential houses' for the purpose of Section 54F. The PCIT's direction to deny exemption and tax other properties was set aside.

ASHVINBHAI BHIMJIBHAI PATEL (LIMBANI),AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 351/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the appellate order was ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after the assessee files all relevant materials.

SMT. MANISHADEVI VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 23/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest because it failed to conduct proper inquiries into the suspicious share transactions. The revision order by the PCIT was upheld, and the assessment order was set aside for fresh assessment.

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 65/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 576/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent for disallowances of employee PF/ESIC contributions for certain years. The addition for seized cash was deleted as it was considered part of already taxed business income.

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 64/AHD/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 51/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 69/AHD/2022[2018-19 Qtr-1]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

SUMEL 6 COMMERCIAL CO-OP. SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 941/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as the interest was earned on deposits made with co-operative banks registered under the State Co-operative Societies Act. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed unjustified.

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 68/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

SANKALP RECREATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 67/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 49/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18, the Revenue failed to point out any incriminating material warranting disallowance of employee PF & ESIC contributions under Section 36(1)(va). Following the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell, these additions were directed to be deleted. For AY 2019-20, the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition for late deposit of PF & ESIC as the payment was made on the next working day after a Sunday, which is considered timely. Regarding seized cash for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that it represented business receipts, albeit unrecorded, to be plausible and supported by evidence. The CIT(A) correctly observed that adding this cash would lead to double taxation as unaccounted receipts were already considered. Thus, the CIT(A)'s deletion was confirmed. An addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 69C for AY 2019-20 was not adjudicated as it was not pressed due to its smallness.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs SANKALP RECREATION PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 569/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2024AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent for disallowances of employee PF/ESIC contributions for certain years. The addition for seized cash was deleted as it was considered part of already taxed business income.

PRADIPKUMAR ARVINDBHAI KOTHARI,BOTAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(10), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 889/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that it is a fit case to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits. However, if the assessee remains non-compliant, the CIT(A) can pass orders based on available material.

M/S. AMIZARA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PALANPUR vs THE ACIT, BANASKANTHA CIRCLE PRESENT JURISDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 384/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not err in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's consistent non-compliance before all authorities, including the Tribunal, led to the dismissal of the appeal.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA vs THE BHARUCH DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED, BHARUCH

ITA 693/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee, as a cooperative bank, is eligible for the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). The appropriation from profit was considered a valid provision for bad and doubtful debts, consistent with previous rulings.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) ,AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD vs SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

ITA 595/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained transactions, finding the profit estimation arbitrary and unsupported. It also upheld the deletion of depreciation disallowance, citing consistency and judicial precedents.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs SIDDHESWARI INFRASTRUCTURE, JUDGES BUNGLOW ROAD

ITA 596/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained transactions, finding the profit estimation arbitrary and unsupported. It also upheld the deletion of depreciation disallowance, citing consistency and judicial precedents.

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 162/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash credits but directed the Assessing Officer to consider withdrawals made from the bank accounts, applying the peak credit theory. This was done to account for potential re-deposits of withdrawn cash.

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 161/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the additions made by the Assessing Officer, citing the assessee's consistent non-compliance. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to consider withdrawals from the bank accounts using the peak credit theory.

GAUTTAM NIPINBHAI NAGARSHETH,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

ITA 154/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries regarding the interest claim and cash credits. The PCIT's conclusion that the AO failed to make adequate inquiries was found factually incorrect, and the PCIT had substituted his opinion for the AO's without identifying specific errors.

PRAKASH GOVINDBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 163/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash credits but directed the Assessing Officer to consider withdrawals made from the bank accounts, applying the peak credit theory. This was done to account for potential re-deposits of withdrawn cash.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. OM LAND REALITY PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1572/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal dismissed several grounds of appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. However, for certain grounds related to Section 40A(2)(b), capital loss, and brought forward losses, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

HARDE vs INGH P. CHUDASAMA PROP. BHAVANI TRANSPORT,AHMEDABADVS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, AHMEDABAD

ITA 200/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT took a divergent view without pointing out any defect in the assessment order. The PCIT's opinion that the case should be of protective addition indicated a second view, not a flaw in the original assessment. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justifiable.

SHRI SANJAY GUPTA,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 68/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. The assessee is allowed to furnish evidence to support claims of vacancy allowance for one property and commercial use for the other.

DIPIKABEN KANIYALAL PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD -3, AHMEDABAD

ITA 513/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 for a de novo inquiry was deemed unjustifiable as the Assessing Officer had already taken a view after verification.

JITENDRA JASHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), VADODARA

ITA 707/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not adjudicate on the merits of the case and was passed ex-parte due to alleged non-service of notice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs YASH ORGANICS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 264/AHD/2014[02/081996 to 11/02/2000]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2024Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts regarding the sales to M/s. Raj Chemicals and confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,55,53,117/- under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence to establish the genuineness of these credits. Adverse evidence, including the seizure of a truck destined for M/s. Raj Chemicals from Gujarat without an inter-state permit, defective 'C' Forms issued to M/s. Raj Chemicals, and the proprietor's absconding status, indicated that the solvent was not delivered to M/s. Raj Chemicals. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's grounds related to this addition. Regarding the deletion of the addition on account of suppression of sales of Naptha, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding on this specific issue, but the overall dismissal of both appeals implies it was not allowed. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,55,53,117/- as unexplained sale consideration credited in the appellant's books of account in respect of sale to M/s. Raj Chemicals, treating it as undisclosed income under Section 68. The grounds of the assessee concerning this addition were rejected.

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

ITA 86/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

YASH ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 164/AHD/2014[Block Period 02.08.1996 to 11.02.2000]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2024Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts regarding the sales to M/s. Raj Chemicals and confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,55,53,117/- under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence to establish the genuineness of these credits. Adverse evidence, including the seizure of a truck destined for M/s. Raj Chemicals from Gujarat without an inter-state permit, defective 'C' Forms issued to M/s. Raj Chemicals, and the proprietor's absconding status, indicated that the solvent was not delivered to M/s. Raj Chemicals. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's grounds related to this addition. Regarding the deletion of the addition on account of suppression of sales of Naptha, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding on this specific issue, but the overall dismissal of both appeals implies it was not allowed. The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 3,55,53,117/- as unexplained sale consideration credited in the appellant's books of account in respect of sale to M/s. Raj Chemicals, treating it as undisclosed income under Section 68. The grounds of the assessee concerning this addition were rejected.

THE DCITM CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs SHRI BHUDARJI MAFATJI THAKOR , AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 544/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 Sept 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal decided the Revenue's appeal based on the admitted low tax effect. The Judicial Member and Accountant Member noted that the tax effect of Rs. 52,76,287/- was well below the Rs. 60 lakhs threshold mentioned in the Finance Act 2024 for pursuing Departmental appeals, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Following this circular, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on the ground of low tax effect, without delving into the merits of the case. Liberty was granted to the Department to revive the appeal if the tax effect increased or if any exclusions mentioned in CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 and Circular No. 5/2024 applied. Regarding the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, the learned counsel stated that the grounds of appeal were not being pressed. Accordingly, the Cross Objection was also dismissed.

SHRI JIGNESH BABULAL MODI,PATAN vs ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

ITA 480/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revenue had accepted similar commission income in the preceding assessment year (2009-10) based on cash deposits. Since the assessee provided details and established the modus operandi, the Assessing Officer could not take a different stand in the subsequent year.

KAMLESH MAHENDRABHAI DAVE,MAHEMDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-2, NADIAD

ITA 672/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2024AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing and to file concise grounds.

KAILASH CHARITABLE TRUST,BHAVNAGAR vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 280/AHD/2024[NA]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2024Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing and to file necessary documents before passing a fresh order.

VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs NFAC (DELHI) AO JURISDICTION THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1105/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since a co-ordinate bench had allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4) in the quantum appeal, the basis for levying penalty for concealment of income ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

LINESH PATHAK,ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE 3 1 1,AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs PURSHOTTAMBHAI BACHUBHAI PITRODA , AHMEDABAD

ITA 1180/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Sept 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.