ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2025

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are not sustainable without failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment and additions made were quashed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs RIDDHESH GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

ITA 973/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17, since the period was beyond three years, the approval for the Section 148 notice should have been from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General as per Section 151(ii). As the approval was from a lower authority, the notice was jurisdictionally deficient, and the proceedings were quashed ab initio.

DR. SHRUTI RAMRAO SHUJOLE, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD vs GSG ABODE LLP, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD

ITA 665/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law as no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search. Furthermore, the additions were not sustainable due to a lack of reliable evidence of cash transactions over and above the sale consideration.

SURESHKUMAR PRABHULAL THAKKAR,BANASKANTHA vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1348/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer merely disallowed the claim based on circumstantial evidence without bringing any material on record to prove that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD vs KANTIBHAI TAPUBHAI SAVALIA, SCON TAMPLE AHMEDABAD

ITA 662/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law as no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO's additions were based on assumptions and presumptions without reliable evidence of cash exchanged over and above the sale consideration.

BRIYA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2067/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the Tribunal and the CIT(A). All matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,AHMEDABAD , GUJARAT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1 EXEMPTIONS, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD , GUJARAT

ITA 1337/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal, relying on its own previous decisions and High Court judgments, held that the delay in filing Form 10 and Form 10B is a procedural lapse that can be condoned. It directed the Assessing Officer to condone the delay and grant the Section 11 exemption after verifying other substantive conditions.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share transactions. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 45/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are not sustainable without failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment and additions made were quashed.

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 46/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are not sustainable without failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment and additions made were quashed.

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 267/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are not sustainable without failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment and additions made were quashed.

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 266/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are not sustainable without failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment and additions made were quashed.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs M/S INOX WIND ENERGY LTD(ERSTWHILE INOX RENEWABLE LTD), VADODARA

ITA 1353/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the present appeal has become infructuous as a similar appeal was already decided. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

DR. SHRUTI RAMRAO SHEJOLE, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD vs JANKI DHARMIK PATEL, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD

ITA 661/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). While the judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments on delay, it implies that the Tribunal has the power to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown. The core issue before the Tribunal was the allowability of the deduction under Section 80D without the PAN of the parents. The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandate the furnishing of the PAN of the person for whom the premium is paid to claim the deduction. The Tribunal reasoned that the requirement of PAN is a statutory condition precedent for availing the deduction under Section 80D. The absence of the PAN of the parents, therefore, renders the claim invalid. The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had correctly disallowed the deduction of Rs. 2,00,000. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the disallowance. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with statutory requirements, such as providing the PAN, is essential for claiming deductions under the Income Tax Act, and procedural lapses that violate mandatory provisions will not be condoned.

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

ITA 1357/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be automatically levied for additions made under the deeming provisions of Section 56(2)(x), especially when the assessee provides a bona fide explanation and discloses all material facts. Citing the rationale from *Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd.* and the exceptions under Section 270A(6), the Tribunal concluded that such additions do not fall under under-reporting or misreporting of income. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 270A was quashed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs MEGHMANI LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1387/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the belated filing of Form 56F was not due to the assessee's fault but technical glitches. It reiterated that the requirement of filing Form 56F is directory, not mandatory, and directed the AO to verify and allow the Section 10AA claim as the form was submitted before the First Appellate Authority.

VISHWABANDHU DAHYABHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs THE ITO, WARD-4, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1421/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for non-compliance (notices sent to an incorrect email address and preference for physical communication) to be reasonable. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to present their case and evidence.

SHREE SARVANIKETAN TRUST,ANAND vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1476/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal ruled that the application was timely and the error was technical, not the assessee's fault. It held that the CIT(E) violated natural justice by rejecting the application without a hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the case for de-novo consideration after providing a proper opportunity for a hearing.

AMEE GOVINDBHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD-1,, MEHSANA

ITA 120/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the information available with the AO indicated that the alleged accommodation entries were repaid. Therefore, the assessee could not be considered a beneficiary of any accommodation entry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs RIDDHESH GIRISHBHAI BHANDARI, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

ITA 974/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17, since the period was beyond three years, the approval for the Section 148 notice should have been from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General as per Section 151(ii). As the approval was from a lower authority, the notice was jurisdictionally deficient, and the proceedings were quashed ab initio.

GSP CROP SCIENCE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 987/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the Principal CIT's Section 263 order, finding that it failed to satisfy the statutory requirements. The Principal CIT merely directed verification without identifying a specific error or establishing prejudice to revenue, which is not permissible under Section 263. The assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was restored.

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHEMDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD vs GSG ABODE LLP, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 21/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 69B. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on the DVO's report was not sufficient to presume unexplained investment, especially when the assessee had provided explanations for minor valuation variations and market value instances. The Tribunal noted that the AO had blown hot and cold by relying on the DVO's report and then presuming a much higher on-money payment without corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law because no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search of the third party. The seized material did not relate to the assessee or the sellers, and the alleged WhatsApp messages lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal also agreed with the assessee's contention that even if token money was received, it pertained to an earlier financial year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD vs JANKI DHARMIK PATEL, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 20/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 69B. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on the DVO's report was not sufficient to presume unexplained investment, especially when the assessee had provided explanations for minor valuation variations and market value instances. The Tribunal noted that the AO had blown hot and cold by relying on the DVO's report and then presuming a much higher on-money payment without corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law because no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search of the third party. The seized material did not relate to the assessee or the sellers, and the alleged WhatsApp messages lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal also agreed with the assessee's contention that even if token money was received, it pertained to an earlier financial year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs HITENDRAKUMAR BHAILALBHAI PATEL, A BHAILALBHAI BHAVAN SOCIETY

ITSSA 19/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 69B. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on the DVO's report was not sufficient to presume unexplained investment, especially when the assessee had provided explanations for minor valuation variations and market value instances. The Tribunal noted that the AO had blown hot and cold by relying on the DVO's report and then presuming a much higher on-money payment without corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law because no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found during the search of the third party. The seized material did not relate to the assessee or the sellers, and the alleged WhatsApp messages lacked evidentiary value. The Tribunal also agreed with the assessee's contention that even if token money was received, it pertained to an earlier financial year. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.

BRIYA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2066/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the Tribunal and the CIT(A). All matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRIYA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2063/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the Tribunal and the CIT(A). All matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRIYA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2064/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the Tribunal and the CIT(A). All matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRIYA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2065/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before both the Tribunal and the CIT(A). All matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT ,GANDHINAGAR vs THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1287/AHD/2025[-]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee, and the appeal was filed with a significant delay for which no condonation was sought. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs ANIL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 403/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was correctly restricted to the extent of actual exempt income, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the deduction under Section 80JJA was also confirmed as allowed in prior years on identical facts.

SAFALI MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL,ANAND vs THE ITO, WARD-4, ANAND

ITA 488/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case, directing full cooperation and response to notices without adjournments.

LIKHMI CHAND SHARMA,BHARATPUR vs THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

ITA 500/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal acknowledged the CIT(A)'s dismissal for delay and the assessee's non-cooperation. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, with a directive that the assessee must comply with notices issued by the AO.

MANUBHA PRABHATSANG VAGHELA,MEHSANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALANPUR

ITA 967/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, relying on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, held that assessees are entitled to set off losses against income determined under Section 115BBE for assessment years up to 2016-17, given that the restriction was introduced only from 1st April, 2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set-off of losses against business income.

AASHNA VIKAS TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1407/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in responding to the notices and had also placed on record details of its activities, such as maintaining 70 Gir cows, audited accounts, and filing returns. The Tribunal found that the denial of 80G approval was directly linked to the denial of section 12A registration. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(E) with all supporting documentary evidence. Consequently, both impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents, and the CIT(E) was directed to decide the matters afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs ANIL LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

ITA 402/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was correctly restricted to the extent of actual exempt income, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the deduction under Section 80JJA was also confirmed as allowed in prior years on identical facts.

MANUBHA PRABHATSANG VAGHELA,MEHSANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PALANPUR

ITA 966/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, relying on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, held that assessees are entitled to set off losses against income determined under Section 115BBE for assessment years up to 2016-17, given that the restriction was introduced only from 1st April, 2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the set-off of losses against business income.

RHV ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1441/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order without adequately dealing with the assessee's contentions and judicial precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de-novo consideration with directions to pass a detailed speaking order.

RHV ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 1440/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a cryptic order without adequately dealing with the assessee's contentions and judicial precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de-novo consideration with directions to pass a detailed speaking order.

MUNJAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

ITA 271/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A) had issued an ex-parte order, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and not acceding to the request for virtual hearing, which vitiated the proceedings. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to grant the assessee proper and adequate opportunity of hearing, including virtual hearing if requested.

THE HARSIDDHI CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs THE ACIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

ITA 1765/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

Following the Gujarat High Court decision in *PCIT-1 vs. Ashwinkumar Arban Co-operative Society Limited*, the Tribunal held that interest income from Co-operative Banks is admissible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). As the entire FDR interest of Rs.45,31,057/- was received from Co-operative Banks, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the full deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Consequentially, other grounds regarding expenses, set-off, interest, and penalty were dismissed.

RAMJIBHAI MAJETHIA,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 338/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal in limine due to non-compliance with notices without adjudicating on the merits, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee, being a non-filer and agriculturist, deserved a proper hearing.

SHREE HEMIBEN KANJIBHAI MALAVIYA CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1410/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025Allowed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application on the basis of a clerical error, especially given the complexities arising from recent amendments to Section 80G. The ITAT set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as if the correct clause (iii) had been selected and to decide the application on its merits within 90 days.

AASHNA VIKAS TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1408/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2025Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), leading to the rejection of its application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and consequently the rejection of the section 80G approval, the assessee had provided a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had placed on record details of its activities, such as maintaining 70 Gir cows in a Gau Shala, audited accounts, and filed returns. Considering that the denial of 80G approval was directly linked to the denial of section 12A registration, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. Both impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary documents, and the Ld. CIT(E) was directed to decide afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard. The issue of whether the assessee's activities were genuinely charitable was not decided on merits but was to be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(E) upon remand.

PRAYATNA CHARITABLE TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 374/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) had erred in rejecting the application solely based on one object being potentially religious without adequate consideration of the assessee's explanation and judicial precedents. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

THE DHOLKA NAGARIC BACHAT SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

ITA 643/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 80AC, which makes timely filing of return a precondition for claiming deductions under Chapter VIA, came into effect from AY 2018-19. Therefore, it was not applicable for AY 2017-18. Prior to this amendment, timely filing was not mandatory for claiming deduction u/s 80P.

SARANGPUR TALIAS POLE PUNCH TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-2, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

ITA 929/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3) is prospective and the assessee had a time window of six years (five years plus the year immediately following) to utilize the accumulated income. Therefore, the addition made by the tax authorities was deleted.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs JHAVERI TRADING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

ITSSA 46/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the present appeal of the Revenue falls within the purview of CBDT Instruction No. 9 of 2024. It was not disputed by the Revenue that the tax effect on the disputed addition was less than Rs. 60 lakhs. Therefore, in view of the cited CBDT circular and the provisions of Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal was of the view that the appeal deserved to be dismissed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. However, the Tribunal noted that if, upon re-verification by the AO, it could be demonstrated that the tax effect was more, or if the Revenue's case fell within the exceptions provided in the Circular, the Department would be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recall of this order within the prescribed time period. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

AKSHAR ELECINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1) (1), VADODARA, VADODARA

ITA 751/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2021-22Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was technical in nature, acknowledging that the claim related to earlier years and the portal did not allow filing Form 10DA without new employment. Considering this technical barrier, the matter was restored to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for verification and allowance of the claim.

RADHE KRUSHNA GAU SALA TRUST MOTA RAMPAR,PADDHARI vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 280/AHD/2025[N.A.]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's second application, filed within the extended time and rectifying an error in the section code mentioned in the first application, was squarely covered by Para 4.1 of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024. Therefore, the rejection by the Ld. CIT(E) was incorrect.

CHANDRAKANT ATMARAM ACHARYA,AHMEDABAD vs ITO, WD 3, PATAN, PATAN

ITA 1355/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to furnish evidence regarding the source of investment from agricultural income and cash savings. A cost of ₹5,000 was imposed on the assessee for non-cooperative conduct during assessment and appellate proceedings, to be paid to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.