ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously been granted provisional registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the issue was whether the assessee could apply for final registration under a different sub-clause if provisional registration was under another. The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation is governed by Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 80. Section 32(2) allows such depreciation to be carried forward irrespective of whether the return was filed within the due date. Therefore, the AO's rectification order was quashed.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation report from other co-owners' cases, considering the assessee's 15% share and providing an opportunity for hearing. The addition of Rs. 63,53,312/- was to be reassessed based on this valuation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 198 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's illiteracy, rural background, and lack of prior engagement with income tax matters, which led to his unawareness of proceedings and orders. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable under Section 249(4)(b) for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal reasoned that advance tax liability arises on admitted and undisputed income, not on disputed additions made during assessment. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not been heard at any stage before the AO or CIT(A) and that the assessee claimed the property transaction was by his brother. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing and presenting evidence. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition under Section 69 or the validity of reopening under Section 148, as these issues were to be adjudicated by the AO.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to fully disclose facts during assessment but emphasized that the tax department should charge tax only on real income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo assessment, directing verification of details and calling for information from third parties and banks.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds of appeal concerning the disallowance of delayed ESIC/PF payments were not pressed and were dismissed as such. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal respectfully followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill arising from the amalgamation of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. The reasoning was that once depreciation is granted in earlier years, the resultant Written Down Value (WDV) becomes final and cannot be altered by the Assessing Officer. Depreciation is a statutory allowance linked to the block of assets, and the WDV must be carried forward. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for both assessment years was directed to be deleted. The assessee's grounds on this issue were allowed. The cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as not pressed, except for the ground relating to the exclusion of sales tax subsidy in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB, which was adjudicated in earlier paragraphs (not detailed in the provided text).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was bad in law as it went beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment. The AO cannot be faulted for not investigating issues not part of the limited scrutiny, and the PCIT cannot use Section 263 to initiate proceedings on such matters.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- in each case to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to fully disclose facts during assessment but emphasized that the tax department should charge tax only on real income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo assessment, directing verification of details and calling for information from third parties and banks.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the details of transactions provided by the assessee and made additions solely based on information from the Investigation Wing. The addition was not sustainable as the AO did not identify specific suspicious entries.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill arising from the amalgamation of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17. The reasoning is based on the principle that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, which exclude goodwill from the ambit of intangible assets for depreciation, are prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22. Therefore, for the assessment years under consideration, the assessee's claim for depreciation on goodwill is allowable. The Tribunal also noted that depreciation is a statutory allowance linked to the block of assets, and the WDV must be carried forward year after year as per Section 43(6). The AO cannot artificially alter the WDV by re-examining the allowability of depreciation accepted in earlier years. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 9,71,72,064/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 7,28,79,048/- for AY 2016-17 are directed to be deleted. The assessee's grounds on this issue are allowed. Other grounds raised by the assessee in their appeals and cross-objections, except for the exclusion of sales tax subsidy in book profits, were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by GPCL from the assessee were not found to be bogus by higher authorities, the additions made by the AO for bogus sales were unsustainable. The basis for the impugned additions in the assessee's case had ceased to exist.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made inquiries and applied his mind to the issue of agricultural income, accepting the assessee's explanation with supporting documents. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not valid as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by GPCL from the assessee were not found to be bogus by higher authorities, the additions made by the AO for bogus sales were unsustainable. The basis for the impugned additions in the assessee's case had ceased to exist.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by GPCL from the assessee were not found to be bogus by higher authorities, the additions made by the AO for bogus sales were unsustainable. The basis for the impugned additions in the assessee's case had ceased to exist.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's stand that deposits were out of cash sales could not be rebutted by the lower authorities. The AO's addition was made mechanically without appreciating the details. For the second issue regarding accommodation entries, the Tribunal directed the AO to conduct further examination.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal as registration was granted. The Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal accepted the prayer for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill arising from the amalgamation of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (SCL) for AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 was not justified. The Tribunal followed the binding decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, which in turn relied on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Aculife Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment in Smifs Securities Ltd. The Tribunal reasoned that depreciation on goodwill is allowable based on these precedents. Furthermore, it was held that once depreciation has been granted in earlier years, the resultant Written Down Value (WDV) becomes final for subsequent assessments and cannot be altered by the Assessing Officer. Depreciation is a statutory allowance linked to the block of assets, and its WDV must be carried forward as per Section 43(6). Therefore, the disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were directed to be deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue were allowed. The assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of delayed ESIC/PF payment for both assessment years, along with grounds in cross-objections and additional grounds (except for sales tax subsidy in book profit computation), were dismissed as not pressed. The general grounds were also not adjudicated as they were argumentative. The appeals of the assessee and the Revenue were partly allowed, and the cross-objections were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5,000/- in each case to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that since the purchases made by GPCL from the assessee were not found to be bogus by higher authorities, the additions made by the AO for bogus sales were unsustainable. The basis for the impugned additions in the assessee's case had ceased to exist.

On the issue of disallowance of delayed ESIC/PF payments and other grounds raised in cross objections and additional grounds (except for sales tax subsidy under section 115JB), the Tribunal held that these were not pressed by the assessee and dismissed them accordingly. The general grounds were also dismissed as argumentative. Regarding the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill arising from the amalgamation of Saurashtra Chemicals Limited. The Tribunal relied on the binding decision of a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case and judgments from the jurisdictional High Court in Aculife Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smifs Securities Ltd. The Tribunal further noted that once depreciation has been granted in earlier years, the resultant Written Down Value (WDV) becomes final and cannot be altered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for both assessment years was directed to be deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue were allowed.

The CIT(A) correctly held that the AO was not justified in substituting the DCF method with the NAV method solely because actual performance later diverged from projections. Valuation is an expert exercise, and the DCF report, being from an independent valuer and a recognised method, could not be rejected without demonstrating perversity.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect and directed its deletion. The core of the decision rested on the interpretation of the ICAI Guidance Note on Real Estate Transactions, 2012. The Tribunal found that the Guidance Note mandates the application of the percentage completion method only when the economic substance of the project is akin to a construction contract. The Revenue failed to establish that the assessee's project was of the nature of a construction contract. The Tribunal noted that the Guidance Note recommends examining the terms of agreements with buyers to determine the nature of the transaction. The assessee consistently argued that significant risks and rewards of ownership were not transferred to buyers upon entering into agreements to sell, and the Revenue failed to counter this with any evidence, such as specific agreements. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue misunderstood the Guidance Note by relying solely on indicators of project outcome certainty without establishing the 'construction contract' characteristic, which is a prerequisite for the percentage completion method. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,24,46,419/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the initial explanation lacked corroboration, the deceased status of the husband and the ledger confirmation from the brother were considered sufficient, especially given the assessee's status as a non-filer with no identified income source. The addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a Coordinate Bench in ACIT vs. Shanker Nebhumal Uttamchandani, which dealt with a similar issue of additions based on mobile phone images without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO relied solely on digital images and a statement from Shri Suresh R Thakkar, which was later retracted. The CIT(A) had observed that Shri Suresh Thakkar retracted his statement, the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination, and the AO did not conduct independent inquiries. Furthermore, the assessment orders for the purchasers of the land did not take any adverse view regarding on-money payments. The Tribunal found no merit in the additions made by the AO, stating that they were not supported by any corroborative evidence. The grounds raised by the Revenue were considered devoid of merit and liable for deletion. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal as defective and not maintainable. It found that the Form No. 36 named impermissible respondents, the Statement of Facts was verbose and irrelevant, and the Grounds of Appeal were numerous, argumentative, and lacked specific grievance against the CIT(A)'s order, thus violating Rule 8 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

The Tribunal noted the ex-parte nature of prior orders and that the bank account was joint with the assessee's father, who claimed the deposits were from his agricultural income. Considering this, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT due to the genuine reasons of death of family members. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance. Considering the substantial additions and the circumstances preventing appearance, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) misunderstood the assessee's submissions and that the source of investment in the property was fully explained. The addition of Rs. 6,39,000 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's belief of income escapement was a 'borrowed satisfaction' as it was based on incorrect information about the assessee's bank account. The AO failed to apply his mind to the assessee's submissions, rendering the reassessment order without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that while the initial explanation lacked corroboration, the deceased status of the husband and the ledger confirmation from the brother were considered sufficient, especially given the assessee's status as a non-filer with no identified income source. The addition was deleted.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is permissible in the absence of exempt income. It also confirmed the deletion of depreciation disallowance, noting that depreciation had been allowed in the initial year of acquisition and the subsequent claim was supported by a Form 3CEA certificate.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed deduction under Section 80P in its computation of income. However, it found that the assessee's liabilities, particularly towards DICGC, exceeded its assets and income, indicating no real income was earned.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The reasoning was based on the fact that the assessee is a cooperative bank that has gone into liquidation. The Tribunal acknowledged that due to the liquidation process, there might be administrative difficulties and delays in handling legal matters. The Tribunal relied on the principle that justice should be done and that procedural technicalities should not stand in the way of substantial justice, especially when a cooperative bank is under liquidation. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were admitted for hearing on merits. The operative direction was to proceed with the hearing of the appeals.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued by the CPC under section 143(1) dated 06.03.2023 was invalid in law due to the non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement of issuing a prior intimation to the assessee as contemplated under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal noted that this requirement is not merely procedural but fundamental to the validity of the proceedings. The Tribunal found that it is an admitted position that no such notice or intimation was given to the assessee before restricting the exemption claim. Respectfully following the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches in Devendra Singh Bhaskar v. DCIT and Khilav Rajendrakumar Joshi (Legal heir of Late Rajendrakumar S. Joshi) v. DCIT, CPC, the Tribunal quashed the intimation passed by the CPC. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) upholding such an intimation could not be sustained. The Tribunal explicitly stated that since the intimation itself was invalidated for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement, it was not adjudicating upon the merits of the claim of exemption under section 10(10AA) or the alternative plea for relief under section 89(1). The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal consolidated 24 appeals filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee, pertaining to Avyaa Developers and its erstwhile partners, for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2020-21 (excluding AY 2019-20). The primary dispute concerned the transfer of ownership of the partnership firm and the consideration received. The Tribunal noted that the assessments were completed under Section 153C of the Act. The judgment details the sequence of events, including the formation and reconstitution of the firm, acquisition of properties, and the search operation on October 8, 2020. Crucially, it highlights the seizure of an agreement dated August 5, 2017, for the transfer of shares in Avyaa Developers to Shri Virendra Amritbhai Patel and Shri Dhanesh Jain, along with an amended agreement dated August 14, 2017, introducing them as partners. The Tribunal observed that the agreements detailed cash and cheque payments, with evidence of payments made prior to the agreement dates. The judgment also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that valued properties and outlined the terms for the new partners to acquire a 50% share and join the firm for developing a commercial mall. The MOU specified the total consideration and payment schedule, indicating that payments made were on account of sale proceeds of properties and for joining the partnership. The Tribunal's specific findings on the issues raised by the parties are not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates a thorough examination of the agreements and financial transactions.