Loading ITAT cases…
3,001 tribunal orders from the Ahmedabad bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 3,001 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already quashed the PCIT's revision order under Section 263. Therefore, the subsequent assessment order and the present appeal against the CIT(A)'s order became infructuous and were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO relied on borrowed satisfaction without independent verification. Furthermore, since the payer (M/s. V. Nitin) accepted the payments as genuine expenditure and made no additions in their own assessment, the addition on merits was also unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO relied on borrowed satisfaction without independent verification. Furthermore, since the payer (M/s. V. Nitin) accepted the payments as genuine expenditure and made no additions in their own assessment, the addition on merits was also unsustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, quashing the assessment for AY 2009-10 as the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was found to be bad in law due to jurisdictional and limitation issues.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 was barred by limitation. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the date of receipt of incriminating documents by the Assessing Officer (AO) of the assessee, which triggers the limitation period for issuing notice under section 153C, was crucial. The AO of the assessee recorded satisfaction on November 10, 2021, for initiating proceedings under section 153C for AY 2009-10. However, considering the search date of March 6, 2018, and the proviso to section 153C which construes the search date as the date of receiving documents, the ten-year block for AY 2018-19 would extend back to AY 2009-10. The crucial aspect, however, was the interpretation of 'immediately after' the completion of proceedings of the searched person. The Tribunal, respectfully following the judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and the High Court's decision in Parag Rameshbhai Gathani, found that the delay in recording the satisfaction note was contrary to the statutory intent and judicial pronouncements. The assessment for AY 2009-10 under section 153C was therefore quashed as being barred by limitation. Consequently, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was also dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as the assessment itself was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO relied on borrowed satisfaction without independent verification. Furthermore, since the payer (M/s. V. Nitin) accepted the payments as genuine expenditure and made no additions in their own assessment, the addition on merits was also unsustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that the PCIT's direction to verify rental expenses was beyond the scope of the Section 263 show-cause notice, which was limited to additional depreciation and CSR expenses. Furthermore, for the issues of additional depreciation and CSR expenses, the Assessing Officer had already conducted verifications and made disallowances, rendering the PCIT's intervention a mere 'change of opinion' and thus not sustainable. Consequently, the PCIT's order was deemed beyond the provisions of Section 263 and did not survive.
The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings under Section 147 were invalid and void ab initio due to discrepancies in the approval process by the PCIT, specifically the unsigned form for reasons recorded and a separate annexure mentioning commodity trading when the reasons related to LTCG. The assessment order was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s order, confirming the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits. It found no infirmity in the lower authorities' decision, concluding that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee produced additional evidence for the first time. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to present her case with the new documents. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were invalid as they were issued beyond the 'surviving time' period, as per Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and assessment orders for these years were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were invalid as they were issued beyond the 'surviving time' period, as per Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and assessment orders for these years were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reasons provided by the assessee for the extensive delays to be vague, general, and unconvincing. It noted that the assessee was otherwise compliant with statutory obligations and had deliberately chosen not to file appeals despite knowledge of the intimation orders. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reasons provided by the assessee for the extensive delays to be vague, general, and unconvincing. It noted that the assessee was otherwise compliant with statutory obligations and had deliberately chosen not to file appeals despite knowledge of the intimation orders. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-appearance and non-filing of details. Considering the assessee's explanation of frequent foreign visits causing inability to coordinate, and that the AR filed details requiring verification, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had mentioned in its order that the assessee filed additional evidence under Rule 46A, but this evidence was not taken on record and was not verified. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal concerning the addition under Section 69A without proper verification. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issue. The CIT(A) is directed to verify the evidences filed under Rule 46A and grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, following the principles of natural justice. The issue of disallowance under Section 24B was not explicitly decided or left undecided, but the primary focus of the remand was on the Section 69A addition.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 was time-barred. The Assessing Officer failed to complete the proceedings within the surviving time limit as per the Supreme Court's directions in Ashish Agarwal and Deepak Steel and Power Limited.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the ld.CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to provide any justification for keeping a substantial amount of cash at home from a loan sanctioned for a specific purpose (cold storage). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the ld.CIT(A)'s decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly invoked Section 273B to delete the penalties, considering the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the discretionary nature of penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly invoked Section 273B to delete the penalties, considering the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the discretionary nature of penalty imposition.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and earlier Tribunal orders, which consistently treated similar expenditures as revenue in nature. The High Court had affirmed that these expenses were for the business purpose of improving milk production and quality.
The Tribunal noted that at the assessment and appellate stages before the CIT(A), the assessee had only produced a list of amounts and commissions paid, but not a confirmation from M/s. Mehta Finance verifying the receipt of these amounts and the commission. The ledger account provided by the assessee was also not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal found that these details required thorough verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to obtain a remand report and verify the documents submitted by the assessee, including obtaining confirmations from both Khemchand Sons and M/s. Mehta Finance. After considering this evidence, the CIT(A) would adjudicate the issues on merits. The assessee would be given an opportunity of hearing. The issue of interest under section 234 was not expressly decided but would be addressed by the CIT(A) upon remand.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced confirmation from M/s. Mehta Finance during assessment or appellate proceedings, only a chronology of amounts and commission paid. The ledger account provided was also not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after verification of documents and obtaining a remand report.
To avoid further litigation, the assessee offered to settle the dispute by accepting an interest benchmarking rate of 5.35%. The Tribunal found this offer fair and justifiable, directing the AO to apply the 5.35% rate for AY 2017-18, clarifying that this settlement is specific to this year and not binding for other periods or loan transactions.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and was satisfied with the genuineness of the transactions, which included proof of purchases, corresponding sales, and taxation of profit. The Tribunal concluded that merely not making an addition, when the AO was satisfied after due verification, does not render an order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was held to be bad in law and its order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act were bad in law and quashed the assessment orders. The primary reasoning was that the AO reopened the assessment based on information received from the ADIT and statements of third parties (Mr. Chirag Thakkar and Mr. Bharat Padia) concerning a search conducted on the 'Dishman Group'. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening were based on incorrect facts, lacked proper application of mind, and correlated information received by the AO with transactions undertaken by the assessee without sufficient basis. Specifically, for AY 2017-18, the AO's reasons recorded were silent regarding alleged escapement of income, and the AO made an addition of Rs. 1.55 crores under Section 69A while the assessee claimed a repayment of loan of Rs. 1.05 crores. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment was based on borrowed satisfaction and incorrect assumptions. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed, and the additions made were deleted. The issue of cross-examination and video hearing opportunity was rendered infructuous by the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions under Section 68 or Section 69A, as the entire reassessment proceedings were found to be invalid.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and earlier Tribunal orders, which consistently treated similar expenditures as revenue in nature. The High Court had affirmed that these expenses were for the business purpose of improving milk production and quality.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced confirmation from M/s. Mehta Finance during assessment or appellate proceedings, only a chronology of amounts and commission paid. The ledger account provided was also not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after verification of documents and obtaining a remand report.
The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 8.00 lakhs, affirming that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the source of the cash deposits. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the ld. CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the amount could not be considered as deposited from past cash withdrawals or justified as cash-in-hand.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The reasons recorded were based on incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction, and lacked proper application of mind, as the information from the third-party search did not directly correlate with the assessee's transactions.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and earlier Tribunal orders, which consistently treated similar expenditures as revenue in nature. The High Court had affirmed that these expenses were for the business purpose of improving milk production and quality.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was done in a hasty and unmindful manner, lacking valid reasons. The information received was factually incorrect and not properly cross-verified with the assessee's accounts or return.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The reasons recorded were based on incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction, and lacked proper application of mind, as the information from the third-party search did not directly correlate with the assessee's transactions.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and earlier Tribunal orders, which consistently treated similar expenditures as revenue in nature. The High Court had affirmed that these expenses were for the business purpose of improving milk production and quality.
The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court and earlier Tribunal orders, which consistently treated similar expenditures as revenue in nature. The High Court had affirmed that these expenses were for the business purpose of improving milk production and quality.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced confirmation from M/s. Mehta Finance during assessment or appellate proceedings, only a chronology of amounts and commission paid. The ledger account provided was also not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after verification of documents and obtaining a remand report.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The reasons recorded were based on incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction, and lacked proper application of mind, as the information from the third-party search did not directly correlate with the assessee's transactions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation as reasonable given the circumstances of her husband's demise and her domestic role. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits from earlier withdrawals, and therefore, ordered the deletion of the impugned addition under Section 69A.
The Tribunal found that the 80G(5) rejection was solely based on the pending Section 12A registration matter, which had previously been remanded to the CIT(E). Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the 80G(5) application back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after the Section 12A issue is resolved.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was unjustified as Form 10B was filed with the revised return and available before the Section 143(1) intimation. Delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural defect and curable.