ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that a composite trust is not disqualified from 80G approval if religious expenditure does not exceed 5% of total income. The CIT(E) failed to consider the assessee's explanation that the identified expenses were charitable in nature.

The Tribunal acknowledged the plausibility of relatives carrying jewellery during family functions but noted the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence from the relatives. Exercising a judicious view, the Tribunal directed a deletion of Rs. 10 Lakhs from the addition confirmed by the CIT(A), while confirming the remaining balance.

The tribunal held that the disallowance of commission expenses paid to non-residents was wrongly made. It reiterated that commission payments to non-resident agents for services rendered entirely outside India, without a permanent establishment in India, do not constitute income accruing or arising in India and are therefore not taxable, negating the requirement for TDS under Section 195. The tribunal noted consistent favorable decisions for the assessee in previous years on identical facts, supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Toshoku Limited.

The Tribunal acknowledged the plausibility of relatives carrying jewellery during family functions but noted the assessee's failure to provide documentary evidence from the relatives. Exercising a judicious view, the Tribunal directed a deletion of Rs. 10 Lakhs from the addition confirmed by the CIT(A), while confirming the remaining balance.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was held invalid due to limitation, and the deletion of cash credit additions was upheld based on the assessee's furnished cash book and balance sheet.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was held invalid due to limitation, and the deletion of cash credit additions was upheld based on the assessee's furnished cash book and balance sheet.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on an erroneous factual foundation as the original reasons recorded for reopening (immovable property and scrips transactions) did not lead to any additions. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the AO could not make additions on new grounds (sale of shares) that were not part of the initial reasons for reopening, especially when the original reasons were found to be incorrect. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as being illegal and beyond jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was held invalid due to limitation, and the deletion of cash credit additions was upheld based on the assessee's furnished cash book and balance sheet.

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of bad debts and provision for pre-clinical test expenditure to the AO for verification with fresh evidence. It also deleted the addition made under Section 14A for AY 2013-14. Other grounds were partly allowed or dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was held invalid due to limitation, and the deletion of cash credit additions was upheld based on the assessee's furnished cash book and balance sheet.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as there was no direct evidence of the assessee paying on-money. Reliance on a third party's admission and uncorroborated documents was deemed insufficient.

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of bad debts and provision for pre-clinical test expenditure to the AO for verification with fresh evidence. It also deleted the addition made under Section 14A for AY 2013-14. Other grounds were partly allowed or dismissed.