ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — March 2025

TROPIKAPARK CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU PRESENT AO THE ITO, WARD- 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 335/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025AY 2021-22Withdrawn

The assessee moved an application stating they have availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

GURUKRUPA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2181/AHD/2024[NA]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely based on the religious nature of a few objects. The Tribunal noted that the Act allows for up to 5% of income to be spent on religious purposes and that the identified objects, such as establishing halls, wadis, and dharamshalas, or educating about Jain principles, were not wholly or substantially religious. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh analysis of the expenditure on religious purposes.

THE THASRA NAGRIK CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,THASRA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 NADIAD, NADIAD

ITA 1538/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's written submissions. The CIT(A) also failed to mention whether notices were properly served and did not consider the submissions despite reproducing them. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

SHREE NITYANANDSWAMI EDUCATION TRUST,DHARMAJ TARAPUR ROAD NAR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DCIT (EXEMPTION) AHMEDBAD

ITA 1421/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(E) and the AO was incorrect in rejecting the rectification application on this ground. The CIT(A) also erred by not adjudicating on merits.

GIRISHCHANDRA NAVINCHANDRA BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 257/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

DAKSHA ATUL SHAH,SURAT vs THE DCIT INT. TAXA,, VADODARA

ITA 59/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees have opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative raised no objections. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

SHRI ATUL JAYANTILAL SHAH,SURAT vs THE DCIT INT. TAXA,, VADODARA

ITA 58/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessees have opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeals. The Departmental Representative raised no objections. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs SHRI ROBIN R. GOENKA, HUF, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 8/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that no documents were seized from the assessee's premises, and the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The AO's assessment order did not refer to any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found from third parties. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia and Abhisar Buildwell P. Limited, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search, the AO lacks jurisdiction to make additions in unabated/completed assessment years under Section 153A. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in holding that the assessment order was bad in law. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as the CIT(A) had not confirmed any additions.

SAURABH PRAVINBHAI PATEL AND BRIJESH PRAVINBHAI PATEL AOP,ANAND vs ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

ITA 1020/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the submissions made by the assessee and noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS) and had been issued Form No. 2 by the competent authority. The assessee requested to withdraw both appeals. The Departmental Representative raised no objections. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals in case of any difficulty in implementing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. No specific finding was made on the merits of the disallowances under Section 80GGC, as the appeals were withdrawn.

SAURABH PRAVINBHAI PATEL AND BRIJESH PRAVINBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

ITA 1021/AHD/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had been issued Form No. 2 by the competent authority. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw both appeals. The Revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals in case of any difficulty in implementing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. No specific finding was made on the merits of the disallowance of Section 80GGC deduction, as the appeals were withdrawn.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs GINGER PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

ITA 483/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of 'on-money' additions for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 but directed taxation of 'on-money' for subsequent years based on the assessee's own admissions. The profit estimation rate was reduced from 14% to 13%. The Revenue's appeal regarding interest expenses and unexplained expenses was dismissed.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 70/AHD/2023[2016-2017]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that no documents were seized from the assessee's premises, and the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The AO's assessment order did not refer to any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found from third parties. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia and Abhisar Buildwell P. Limited, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search, the AO lacks jurisdiction to make additions in unabated/completed assessment years under Section 153A. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in holding that the assessment order was bad in law. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as the CIT(A) had not confirmed any additions.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs ROBIN RAMAVTAR GOENKA, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 71/AHD/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2017-2018Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that no documents were seized from the assessee's premises, and the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The AO's assessment order did not refer to any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found from third parties. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia and Abhisar Buildwell P. Limited, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search, the AO lacks jurisdiction to make additions in unabated/completed assessment years under Section 153A. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in holding that the assessment order was bad in law. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as the CIT(A) had not confirmed any additions.

GINGER PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 45/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessee's ground regarding additions without incriminating material was not substantiated as the AO had referred to seized documents and employee statements. Regarding the profit margin estimation, the Tribunal found that while the Assessee argued for a 12.5% rate in other cases, no universal rate was applied. Citing a co-ordinate bench decision in Sankalp INN, the Tribunal found a profit rate of 13% reasonable and thus partly allowed the Assessee's ground, directing the AO to apply 13% profit rate. On the issue of 'on-money' for subsequent years, the Tribunal noted the Assessee's admission of receiving such receipts and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to tax them, applying the profit rate decided in this appeal. For the Revenue's ground on interest expenses, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding no nexus established by the AO between interest-bearing funds and interest-free advances, and that the Assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of 'on-money' receipts for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20, but directed taxation of crystallized 'on-money' for AY 2020-21 to 2023-24. The Revenue's ground on unexplained expenses was dismissed as the CIT(A) rightly allowed telescoping of cash expenditure against unaccounted cash receipts.

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD vs SHRI ROBIN R. GOENKA, HUF, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 9/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made if based on incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal noted that no documents were seized from the assessee's premises, and the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The AO's assessment order did not refer to any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found from third parties. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia and Abhisar Buildwell P. Limited, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during the search, the AO lacks jurisdiction to make additions in unabated/completed assessment years under Section 153A. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in holding that the assessment order was bad in law. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed as the CIT(A) had not confirmed any additions.

GINGER PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

ITA 433/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Mar 2025AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of 'on-money' additions for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20 but directed taxation of 'on-money' for subsequent years based on the assessee's own admissions. The profit estimation rate was reduced from 14% to 13%. The Revenue's appeal regarding interest expenses and unexplained expenses was dismissed.

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

ITA 105/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that credits directly originating from foreign remittances into NRE accounts are exempt from taxation. However, transfers from NRO to NRE accounts require verification of the original source in the NRO account to determine taxability.

SONAL SHAKUNTAL PATEL,NADIAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-4), NADIAD

ITA 763/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2025AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was given liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

RAJENDRA MAGANBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, VADODARA

ITA 106/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that credits directly originating from foreign remittances into the NRE account are exempt from taxation under Section 10(4) of the Act. For AY 2015-16, the addition of Rs.3,67,60,000/- credited on 23-01-2015 in HDFC Bank (NRE) was deleted as it was a foreign remittance from the UK. For AY 2013-14, the addition of Rs.48,69,033/- credited on 13-09-2012 in HSBC Bank (NRE) was deleted as it represented a redemption of an NRE fixed deposit, also exempt under Section 10(4). However, the Tribunal noted that transfers from an NRO account to an NRE account require verification of the original source in the NRO account. The additions of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (HDFC Bank, AY 2013-14) and Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Deutsche Bank, AY 2013-14) require further verification by the AO to ascertain if the original source of funds in the NRO account was taxable Indian income or tax-free foreign remittances. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents like Nitin Mavji Vekariya and Bhavesh Chandrakantbhai Bhatt, stating that NRE deposits sourced from foreign remittances are beyond Indian taxation unless proven to originate from taxable Indian income. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2013-14 was partly allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for further verification, and the appeal for AY 2015-16 was allowed in full.

SONAL SHAKUNT PATEL,NADIAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-4), NADIAD

ITA 762/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2025AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn due to the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was given liberty to seek restoration if they failed to avail the scheme for bonafide reasons.

MITALBEN RAHULKUMAR SHAH ,ANAND vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ANAND, ANAND

ITA 1637/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not complied with notices from either the CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee is directed to comply with the AO's notices, with a warning that failure to do so could lead to penalty proceedings.

SHRI SALMAN ABDULRAZAK PATEL,VADODARA vs THE ACIT (OSD), WD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

ITA 651/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: Heard4 Mar 2025AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, considering the assessee's election to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue's no-objection. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the benefits of the VSV Scheme are not availed for any bonafide reasons.

SATYANARAYAN PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2124/AHD/2024[N.A.]Status: Disposed4 Mar 2025Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Exemption)'s order lacked details regarding the issuance and service of notices. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper verification of documents and adjudication as per the Income Tax Act, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs RELIEF CONSTRUCTION CO., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 103/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable. It found that the digital data from the third party's mobile phone lacked corroborative evidence, such as the assessee's signature or handwriting, and did not specify whether the amounts were received or paid. Relying on the co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani, which held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence without corroboration, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for making the additions. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. As the additions were deleted, the grounds raised by the Revenue, which were dependent on these additions, were rendered infructuous and dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs K MEHTA AND CO., AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 102/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable. It found that the digital data from the third party's mobile phone lacked corroborative evidence, such as the assessee's signature or handwriting, and did not specify whether the amounts were received or paid. Relying on the co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani, which held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence without corroboration, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for making the additions. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. As the additions were deleted, the grounds raised by the Revenue, which were dependent on these additions, were rendered infructuous and dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

MARUTI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), , AHMEDABAD

ITA 1633/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that when the addition to income is based on estimation, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The penalty levied by the lower authorities was directed to be deleted.

RELIEF CONSTRUCTION CO.,AHMEDABAD vs THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 75/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable. It found that the digital data from the third party's mobile phone lacked corroborative evidence, such as the assessee's signature or handwriting, and did not specify whether the amounts were received or paid. Relying on the co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani, which held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence without corroboration, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for making the additions. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. As the additions were deleted, the grounds raised by the Revenue, which were dependent on these additions, were rendered infructuous and dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

K MEHTA & CO.,AHMEDABAD vs THE ACIT, CNTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 74/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable. It found that the digital data from the third party's mobile phone lacked corroborative evidence, such as the assessee's signature or handwriting, and did not specify whether the amounts were received or paid. Relying on the co-ordinate bench decision in ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani, which held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence without corroboration, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for making the additions. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. As the additions were deleted, the grounds raised by the Revenue, which were dependent on these additions, were rendered infructuous and dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.