ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2025

AZURE KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2012/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the subsidy was initially received as capital subsidy and accounted for as such. The subsequent refund did not change its nature. Therefore, treating it as revenue receipt and making additions was incorrect. The disallowance of depreciation on software and interest expense were also deleted.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the cash deposits were explained by business sales supported by evidence. The disallowance of salary was also deleted as the AO failed to propose it in the show cause notice and the employees had declared the income.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD., VEJALPUR vs PEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, ASHRAM ROAD

ITA 2216/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were time-barred. Both the first notice under Section 148 (dated 25.06.2021) and the second notice (dated 24.08.2022) for A.Y. 2015-16 were found to be invalid, based on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court pronouncements regarding notice issuance timelines.

DINESHKUMAR NEMICHAND JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs ITO WARD 3(2)(6), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 781/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed for statistical purpose

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the addition of Rs. 26,57,500/- under Section 69A as unexplained cash. However, it found the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 6% under Section 44AD to be arbitrary. The Tribunal directed that the net profit estimation should be appropriately reduced to 4%, subject to verification, after considering the assessee's business profits.

MUKESH BATUBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 846/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's reasons for delay, particularly as a non-resident, and decided the appeal on merits rather than technical limitation. Citing judicial precedent, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its substantive grounds.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs KAPIL ARUN AGRAWAL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 672/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the reasons for reopening were factually incorrect and based on vague information, and that the assessee had incurred STCL, not LTCG, on one scrip. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on general and vague information without proper verification or establishing a direct nexus for forming a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment.

DADAJI FARMING AND SELF EMPLOYMENT CHERITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 420/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025Allowed (for statistical purposes)

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G(5)(iii). This allows the assessee a fresh opportunity to provide the necessary submissions and explanations to establish the genuineness of its activities.

AHMEDABAD KADI VIJAPUR PRAGANA SHRIMALI SONI UTTEJAK MANDAL,GANDHINAGAR vs THE ITO, WARD-EXEMPTION, PALANPUR PRESENT JURIS. THE ITO, WARD-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1041/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, affirming that the trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act for AY 2017-18 due to its non-registration under Section 12AA and its operation for a specific community, which is not in consonance with Section 12AA. It was noted that registration under Section 12AA was only granted for subsequent assessment years. The Tribunal also confirmed the assessment was a complete scrutiny and found the AO's addition justified.

DADAJI FARMING AND SELF EMPLOYMENT CHERITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 419/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025Allowed (for statistical purposes)

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the applications under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and Section 80G(5)(iii). This allows the assessee a fresh opportunity to provide the necessary submissions and explanations to establish the genuineness of its activities.

MUKESHKUMAR CHANDULAL DALWADI,ANAND vs THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 529/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The tribunal noted that the assessee maintained audited books and demonstrated that the fall in GP was due to a decline in cattle feed selling prices despite increased volumes. Relying on jurisdictional High Court precedent, the tribunal held that a mere fall in GP rate without specific defects in the audited books of account does not justify rejection of books under Section 145(3) or a trading addition. The tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

OLIVE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,GANDHINAGAR vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1 (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2118/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed4 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The assessee submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the request and, consequently, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

UNIVERSAL MARKETING,PANCHMAHAL vs THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

ITA 851/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submissions and affidavits, noting that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order after two adjournment requests. Deeming it fit, the Tribunal set aside the matter and remanded it to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present its case on merits.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, AAYKAR BHAWAN vs GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZER & CHEMICALS LIMITED, NARMADANAGAR

ITA 970/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of depreciation on goodwill arising from the merger, as this issue had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in preceding years by the ITAT and confirmed by the High Court. Similarly, the deduction under Section 80IA for profits earned from power supplied to captive power units was also correctly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) following prior favourable decisions.

M/S. L. G. CHOUDHARY,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 730/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of an unsecured loan of Rs. 12 Lakhs with documentary evidence. For other purchase-related disallowances, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of evidence.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs MANTHAN SHYAM GANATRA, AHMEDABAD

ITA 2032/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had correctly deleted the addition made by the AO. The factual findings of the CIT(A) regarding the explanation of credit entries, based on documents like PAN, confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements, were found to be uncontroverted.

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VEJALPUR vs L G CHOUDHARY, NARANPURA

ITA 690/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of an unsecured loan of Rs. 12 Lakhs with documentary evidence. For other purchase-related disallowances, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of evidence.

SHREE JAGVALLABH PARSHWANATH BHATHA GHAR TRUST,PALDI, AHMEDABAD vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1153/AHD/2025[N.A.]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit all necessary documents for Section 12A registration, conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The decision on Section 80G(5) approval is to be made subsequent to the resolution of the Section 12A registration matter.

SURESH PRABHLAL KABRA,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 832/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal determined that M/s. Kabra & Co. was indeed the proprietorship concern of the assessee's HUF, a fact confirmed by previous assessments and unrefuted by the Department despite opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the additions could not be made in the assessee's individual hands and directed their deletion.

SURESH PRABHULAL KABRA,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 831/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal determined that M/s. Kabra & Co. was indeed the proprietorship concern of the assessee's HUF, a fact confirmed by previous assessments and unrefuted by the Department despite opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the additions could not be made in the assessee's individual hands and directed their deletion.

APRAAVA RENEWABLE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 693/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The tribunal held that the PCIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable. It found that the PCIT failed to identify any specific error in the AO's orders and merely remanded the issues for verification, which is beyond the scope of revisionary powers as the twin conditions for exercising Section 263 (error causing prejudice) were not met.

SURESH PRABHULAL KABRA,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 830/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that M/s. Kabra & Co. is indeed the proprietorship concern of the assessee's HUF and not the assessee in his individual capacity. This finding was based on the fact that the AO in AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21 had verified this fact and accepted the assessee's contention. The Tribunal also noted that the bank had acknowledged its mistake in linking the assessee's individual PAN to the bank account of M/s. Kabra & Co., which actually belonged to the assessee's HUF. The Department failed to controvert this fact before the Tribunal despite being granted ample opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the additions made in the hands of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 were incorrect as they pertained to the HUF. The additions were directed to be deleted.

ANTS STUDIO PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 126/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Cash Deposits): For AY 2009-10, Rs.6,77,93,396/- was added. The Tribunal, following its decision in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for AY 2009-10, deleted the addition of Rs.7,72,710/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, allowing the ground. For AY 2013-14, Rs.29,35,700/- was added. The Tribunal confirmed this addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the cash deposits represented cash-in-hand with branches, especially since business activities had ceased from AY 2012-13. Issue 2 (Section 40(a)(ia)): The grounds related to this section were not specifically detailed in the provided text for individual AYs, but the overall outcome for AY 2009-10 indicates that the disallowance was confirmed in one instance (Rs.6,03,423/-) and the ground related to Rs.25,33,669/- was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 3 (Share Capital): The ground related to the introduction of share capital treated as unexplained income under Section 68 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings for AY 2009-10. Issue 4 (Depreciation): For AY 2009-10, the disallowance of Rs.9,80,195/- was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide bills and vouchers for asset additions. For AY 2012-13, the disallowance of Rs.9,76,695/- was also confirmed for similar reasons. Issue 5 (Section 43B): The disallowance of Rs.6,590/- under Section 43B for AY 2009-10 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 6 (10% Disallowance of Expenses): For AY 2009-10, the lump sum 10% disallowance out of various expenses (Rs.86,04,789/-) was restricted to 5%, granting partial relief. Issue 7 (Addition of Rs.5,88,514/- for AY 2012-13): The disallowance of expenses was restricted to 5% of the AO's disallowance, providing a relief of Rs.2,94,257/-. Issue 8 (Jurisdiction under Section 153C): The additional legal grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Operative Directions: For AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was dismissed. The specific relief granted was a reduction in disallowance for expenses in AY 2009-10 and AY 2012-13, and deletion of a portion of cash deposit addition in AY 2009-10.

ANTS STUDIO PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 125/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Cash Deposits): For AY 2009-10, Rs.6,77,93,396/- was added. The Tribunal, following its decision in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for AY 2009-10, deleted the addition of Rs.7,72,710/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, allowing the ground. For AY 2013-14, Rs.29,35,700/- was added. The Tribunal confirmed this addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the cash deposits represented cash-in-hand with branches, especially since business activities had ceased from AY 2012-13. Issue 2 (Section 40(a)(ia)): The grounds related to this section were not specifically detailed in the provided text for individual AYs, but the overall outcome for AY 2009-10 indicates that the disallowance was confirmed in one instance (Rs.6,03,423/-) and the ground related to Rs.25,33,669/- was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 3 (Share Capital): The ground related to the introduction of share capital treated as unexplained income under Section 68 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings for AY 2009-10. Issue 4 (Depreciation): For AY 2009-10, the disallowance of Rs.9,80,195/- was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide bills and vouchers for asset additions. For AY 2012-13, the disallowance of Rs.9,76,695/- was also confirmed for similar reasons. Issue 5 (Section 43B): The disallowance of Rs.6,590/- under Section 43B for AY 2009-10 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 6 (10% Disallowance of Expenses): For AY 2009-10, the lump sum 10% disallowance out of various expenses (Rs.86,04,789/-) was restricted to 5%, granting partial relief. Issue 7 (Addition of Rs.5,88,514/- for AY 2012-13): The disallowance of expenses was restricted to 5% of the AO's disallowance, providing a relief of Rs.2,94,257/-. Issue 8 (Jurisdiction under Section 153C): The additional legal grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Operative Directions: For AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was dismissed. The specific relief granted was a reduction in disallowance for expenses in AY 2009-10 and AY 2012-13, and deletion of a portion of cash deposit addition in AY 2009-10.

ANTS STUDIO PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 124/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Cash Deposits): For AY 2009-10, Rs.6,77,93,396/- was added. The Tribunal, following its decision in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for AY 2009-10, deleted the addition of Rs.7,72,710/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, allowing the ground. For AY 2013-14, Rs.29,35,700/- was added. The Tribunal confirmed this addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the cash deposits represented cash-in-hand with branches, especially since business activities had ceased from AY 2012-13. Issue 2 (Section 40(a)(ia)): The grounds related to this section were not specifically detailed in the provided text for individual AYs, but the overall outcome for AY 2009-10 indicates that the disallowance was confirmed in one instance (Rs.6,03,423/-) and the ground related to Rs.25,33,669/- was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 3 (Share Capital): The ground related to the introduction of share capital treated as unexplained income under Section 68 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings for AY 2009-10. Issue 4 (Depreciation): For AY 2009-10, the disallowance of Rs.9,80,195/- was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide bills and vouchers for asset additions. For AY 2012-13, the disallowance of Rs.9,76,695/- was also confirmed for similar reasons. Issue 5 (Section 43B): The disallowance of Rs.6,590/- under Section 43B for AY 2009-10 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 6 (10% Disallowance of Expenses): For AY 2009-10, the lump sum 10% disallowance out of various expenses (Rs.86,04,789/-) was restricted to 5%, granting partial relief. Issue 7 (Addition of Rs.5,88,514/- for AY 2012-13): The disallowance of expenses was restricted to 5% of the AO's disallowance, providing a relief of Rs.2,94,257/-. Issue 8 (Jurisdiction under Section 153C): The additional legal grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Operative Directions: For AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was dismissed. The specific relief granted was a reduction in disallowance for expenses in AY 2009-10 and AY 2012-13, and deletion of a portion of cash deposit addition in AY 2009-10.

ANTS STUDIO PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 123/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Cash Deposits): For AY 2009-10, Rs.6,77,93,396/- was added. The Tribunal, following its decision in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for AY 2009-10, deleted the addition of Rs.7,72,710/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, allowing the ground. For AY 2013-14, Rs.29,35,700/- was added. The Tribunal confirmed this addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the cash deposits represented cash-in-hand with branches, especially since business activities had ceased from AY 2012-13. Issue 2 (Section 40(a)(ia)): The grounds related to this section were not specifically detailed in the provided text for individual AYs, but the overall outcome for AY 2009-10 indicates that the disallowance was confirmed in one instance (Rs.6,03,423/-) and the ground related to Rs.25,33,669/- was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 3 (Share Capital): The ground related to the introduction of share capital treated as unexplained income under Section 68 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings for AY 2009-10. Issue 4 (Depreciation): For AY 2009-10, the disallowance of Rs.9,80,195/- was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide bills and vouchers for asset additions. For AY 2012-13, the disallowance of Rs.9,76,695/- was also confirmed for similar reasons. Issue 5 (Section 43B): The disallowance of Rs.6,590/- under Section 43B for AY 2009-10 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 6 (10% Disallowance of Expenses): For AY 2009-10, the lump sum 10% disallowance out of various expenses (Rs.86,04,789/-) was restricted to 5%, granting partial relief. Issue 7 (Addition of Rs.5,88,514/- for AY 2012-13): The disallowance of expenses was restricted to 5% of the AO's disallowance, providing a relief of Rs.2,94,257/-. Issue 8 (Jurisdiction under Section 153C): The additional legal grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Operative Directions: For AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was dismissed. The specific relief granted was a reduction in disallowance for expenses in AY 2009-10 and AY 2012-13, and deletion of a portion of cash deposit addition in AY 2009-10.

ANTS STUDIO PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 122/AHD/2021[2009-10]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Issue 1 (Cash Deposits): For AY 2009-10, Rs.6,77,93,396/- was added. The Tribunal, following its decision in IT(SS)A No.122/Ahd/2021 for AY 2009-10, deleted the addition of Rs.7,72,710/- on account of unexplained cash deposit, allowing the ground. For AY 2013-14, Rs.29,35,700/- was added. The Tribunal confirmed this addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the cash deposits represented cash-in-hand with branches, especially since business activities had ceased from AY 2012-13. Issue 2 (Section 40(a)(ia)): The grounds related to this section were not specifically detailed in the provided text for individual AYs, but the overall outcome for AY 2009-10 indicates that the disallowance was confirmed in one instance (Rs.6,03,423/-) and the ground related to Rs.25,33,669/- was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 3 (Share Capital): The ground related to the introduction of share capital treated as unexplained income under Section 68 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings for AY 2009-10. Issue 4 (Depreciation): For AY 2009-10, the disallowance of Rs.9,80,195/- was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to provide bills and vouchers for asset additions. For AY 2012-13, the disallowance of Rs.9,76,695/- was also confirmed for similar reasons. Issue 5 (Section 43B): The disallowance of Rs.6,590/- under Section 43B for AY 2009-10 was not explicitly addressed in the provided excerpt's holdings. Issue 6 (10% Disallowance of Expenses): For AY 2009-10, the lump sum 10% disallowance out of various expenses (Rs.86,04,789/-) was restricted to 5%, granting partial relief. Issue 7 (Addition of Rs.5,88,514/- for AY 2012-13): The disallowance of expenses was restricted to 5% of the AO's disallowance, providing a relief of Rs.2,94,257/-. Issue 8 (Jurisdiction under Section 153C): The additional legal grounds challenging the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153C were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed. Operative Directions: For AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13, the appeals were partly allowed. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was dismissed. The specific relief granted was a reduction in disallowance for expenses in AY 2009-10 and AY 2012-13, and deletion of a portion of cash deposit addition in AY 2009-10.

ANJANABEN DINESHKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-5, GANDHINAGAR

ITA 671/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders by providing affidavits, producing some lenders, and submitting 7/12 extracts showing their agricultural income. The Assessing Officer could not make the addition based on conjecture and surmises when the assessee had provided sufficient evidence.

SURESH PRABHULAL KABRA,AHMEDABAD vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 833/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal determined that M/s. Kabra & Co. was indeed the proprietorship concern of the assessee's HUF, a fact confirmed by previous assessments and unrefuted by the Department despite opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the additions could not be made in the assessee's individual hands and directed their deletion.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NADIAD vs OMPRAKASH DEVILAL SHAH, NADIAD

ITA 1547/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided ample evidence of genuine purchases, including invoices, delivery challans, bank statements, and transport details, which the AO failed to consider. The Tribunal noted that the GST registration cancellation of Bright Corporation was subsequent to the purchase period, making the AO's addition incorrect.

DHARA DEVELOPERS,SHREE VISHNUDHARA HOMES vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2)(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE, VEJALPUR

ITA 1833/AHD/2024[2015-2016]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to provide valid reasons for delay in filing. Even on merits, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order that upheld the AO/TPO's addition.

SHREE JAGVALLABH PARSHWANATH BHATHA GHAR TRUST,PALDI, AHMEDABAD vs CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1154/AHD/2025[N.A.]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit all necessary documents for Section 12A registration, conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The decision on Section 80G(5) approval is to be made subsequent to the resolution of the Section 12A registration matter.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD., VEJALPUR vs GOPALBHAI UMARBHAI BHARAVAD, VIRAMGAM

ITA 19/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) agreed with the Revenue that the CIT(A)'s power to set aside the assessment and remand it back to the AO was invalidly exercised because the AO had already considered the assessee's submissions and evidences through a remand report during the appellate proceedings, effectively substituting the original Section 144 assessment. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on the genuineness of the agricultural income after considering all material, including the AO's remand report.

PUNIT ASHOKKUMAR THAKKAR,VADODARA vs I.T.O. WARD 3(1)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

ITA 250/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2020-21Allowed for statistical purposes

The Tribunal refused to condone the delay, citing the assessee's and consultant's carelessness and the assessee's non-appearance before authorities. However, to prevent 'grave injustice' due to the erroneous attribution of the entire sale consideration, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication with an opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund for their non-serious attitude.

DILIPKUMAR SOHANLAL MAHESHWARI,AHMEDABAD vs THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 29/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided comprehensive evidence, including contract notes, demat account statements, and bank records, proving the genuineness of the share transactions, which occurred through a registered broker and were not blacklisted by SEBI. The Assessing Officer failed to provide any material evidence to substantiate the claim of bogus transactions. Consequently, the addition of Rs.15,22,776/- made under Section 68 was deleted.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs DEEPAK JYOTIPRASAD CHIRIPAL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 566/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that at the time of sale by the assessee, the land was agricultural and located outside municipal limits. The subsequent conversion to non-agricultural use for industrial purposes was undertaken by the buyer, not the assessee. Therefore, the sale by the assessee qualified for the exemption under Section 2(14)(iii), and the assessee is not liable for capital gains tax.

YUVA GAYATRI PARIWAR TRUST,ANAND vs THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 581/AHD/2025[NA]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, concluding that the assessee failed to demonstrate that its expenditure for stated charitable activities (education, health, environment) was within the permissible limits for a non-religious trust. The significant religious expenditure (38.53%) without adequate supporting evidence for other charitable purposes justified the rejection of the Section 80G(5) approval.

EVEXIA LIFECARE LIMITED,VADODARA vs THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), VADODARA

ITA 605/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, noting the assessee's failure to comply with six opportunities previously provided. This remand is conditional on the assessee depositing a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 15 days and making proper compliance before the CIT(A).

APRAAVA RENEWABLE ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs THE PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

ITA 694/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed3 Sept 2025AY 2021-22Allowed

The tribunal held that the PCIT's orders under Section 263 were unsustainable. It found that the PCIT failed to identify any specific error in the AO's orders and merely remanded the issues for verification, which is beyond the scope of revisionary powers as the twin conditions for exercising Section 263 (error causing prejudice) were not met.

SMT. NITIN R SHAH,VADODARA vs THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

ITA 1591/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the escrow agreement regarding the additional consideration was not properly verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter is set aside to the AO to consider the document and allow deduction under section 54B after verification.

ASIT SOMABHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

ITA 695/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition related to the loan from Balchandbhai but upholding the addition of Rs. 1,75,000/- from Govindbhai, citing lack of established creditworthiness and absence of proof of financial capacity. The Tribunal, however, found that Govindbhai Patel provided his income tax return, ledger account, and his business entity details, showing the loan was advanced through banking channels from his regular business account, thus demonstrating identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.

RAJNIKANT RAICHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1326/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was initiated on grounds that appeared factually incorrect as the assessee had disclosed the sale consideration and exemption claim in the original return. The AO and CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions and evidence properly.

RAJESHKUMAR NATUBHAI PATEL,PIPLAG NADIAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, NADIAD

ITA 1395/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal determined that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity at both the assessment and appellate stages due to his absence from India and non-receipt of notices. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate.

INCOMETAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs CHAITANYA PRAKASHBHAI DANGI, AHMEDABAD

ITA 771/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not fully appreciated the issues, and there were submissions regarding additional evidence and opportunities for the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for de-novo consideration.

SHANKUTLABEN PATEL,PETLAD vs NFAC, DELHI, THE ITO, WARD-1, ANAND

ITA 1050/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 499 days, considering the assessee is a senior citizen, uneducated, and had relied on others for tax matters. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication to give the assessee an opportunity to explain the cash deposits.

KALABHAI KARSHANBHAI PATEL,BANASKANTHA vs THE ITO, WARD-3, PALANPUR

ITA 11/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains by adopting the DVO's valuation and the cost of acquisition, giving the assessee an opportunity for a proper hearing.

SALVANTSINGH SWARUPSINGH PALLU,VADODARA vs ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

ITA 949/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided adequate documentary evidence, including land documents, cash book, bank statements, and family confirmations, to explain the sources of the deposits from agricultural income, transportation, dairy, son's savings, opening cash balances, and loan repayments. Since the Revenue Authorities had already accepted a portion of the agricultural income based on similar evidence, the Tribunal concluded there was no reason to disallow the remaining Rs.6,78,400/-.

DHARMISHTHABEN NARESHKUMAR SONI,AHMEDABAD vs ITO WARD 4(2)(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1127/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that the ₹19,00,000/- paid through banking channels was identifiable and verifiable, with no material to suggest unexplained funds. For the cash component of ₹2,96,825/-, the assessee had declared income of ₹3,14,560/-, indicating sufficient cash availability. Therefore, the entire addition of ₹21,96,825/- made under Section 69 read with Section 115BBE was deemed unjustified and ordered to be deleted.

DCIT, CC-1, VADODARA vs RAJESH MOHANLAL NIMKAR, VADODARA

ITSSA 18/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,81,00,000/- by the Ld. CIT(A) was correct. The Tribunal noted that the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2013 clearly indicated M/s Mayfair Spaces Ltd. (now M/s Northway Spaces Ltd.) as the purchaser of the land. The assessee, Rajesh Mohanlal Nimkar, had merely signed the registered deed in his capacity as a director of the said company. Consequently, the ownership of the property vested in the company, not in the individual. Therefore, if any 'on-money' was paid over and above the sale consideration, it was assessable in the hands of the purchaser company and not in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s detailed examination and direction to delete the addition from the assessee's hands. The ratio decidendi is that when a transaction is clearly undertaken by a company, and an individual signs merely as a director, any related financial implications, including 'on-money' payments, are attributable to the company, not the individual director, unless specific evidence proves otherwise.

MAHENDRAKUMAR CHUNILAL SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1267/AHD/2024[2017-2018]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal found that the reassessment was initiated beyond three years and the specific escaped income for AY 2017-18 was below the Rs. 50 lakh limit. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction was held to be bad in law.

CHAITANYA PRAKASHCHANDRA DANGI,AHMEDABAD vs THE ITO, WARD-2(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 570/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Sept 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not fully appreciated the issues, and there were submissions regarding additional evidence and opportunities for the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for de-novo consideration.