ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based solely on non-compliance and that principles of natural justice required the assessee to be given another opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued under section 148 for reopening the assessment was invalid because the escapement of income (Rs. 5 lacs) did not meet the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs or more required under section 149(b) for reopening beyond three years and three months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in reopening the assessment under section 148 as the case had already been subjected to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The Tribunal further noted that the loan transaction was genuine and supported by bank details, being out of the sale proceeds of land already assessed.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents, including Rojmel accounts and digital data, had evidentiary value and were not mere 'dumb documents'. The AO's analysis and corroboration of these documents were found to be meticulous. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of retracted statements as self-serving and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the evidentiary value of seized documents.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, Section 194-IA applied to the aggregate consideration of the property, not individual shares. However, subsequent amendments changed this position. Citing previous rulings, the Tribunal found that for the period before the amendment, if individual shares were below the threshold, TDS was not required.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents had evidentiary value and were not 'dumb documents'. The AO's analysis and corroboration of entries with bank transactions were found to be meticulous. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the evidentiary value of seized documents, rejection of affidavits, and retractions, stating that no fault could be found in those findings.

The Tribunal upheld the evidentiary value of the seized documents, finding that the AO's analysis was meticulous and corroborated. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that the documents were 'dumb documents' or that retractions of statements vitiated their value. The Tribunal also found the AO's and CIT(A)'s estimations of profit on unaccounted sales and agency-based transactions to be based on established facts and analysis.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea of compelling circumstances for non-response and the need for another opportunity. The Tribunal held that remanding the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the application, along with the assessee's submissions, would serve the interests of justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from properly prosecuting the matter due to medical hardships. It emphasized deciding matters on merits rather than technicalities and thus set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the ex-parte nature of the orders passed by the CIT(E). While imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case and obtain registration.

The Tribunal upheld the evidentiary value of the seized documents despite the assessee's claims of them being 'dumb documents' or estimations. The Tribunal found that the AO meticulously analyzed the data and corroborated entries, and the assessee failed to point out any defects in the AO's analysis. The Tribunal also upheld the rejection of retracted statements by employees as after-thought and self-serving.

The tribunal held that the disallowance of weighted deduction on R&D expenses was not justified as the approval of the R&D facility by DSIR is the primary condition, not the quantum certified by the auditor. The tribunal also held that MEIS receipts are capital in nature and not taxable under normal provisions or Section 115JB, following earlier precedents.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to April 1, 2016, the prescribed authority was not required to quantify R&D expenditure eligible for weighted deduction, thus allowing the claim based on the assessee's expenditure. For MEIS receipts, the Tribunal followed its own precedent and other ITAT judgments, holding them to be capital in nature and not taxable.

The tribunal held that the disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for R&D expenses by the lower authorities was justified as per the amended provisions requiring quantification by DSIR. However, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee regarding MEIS receipts, treating them as capital in nature and not taxable, following its own previous orders and Supreme Court judgments.

The tribunal held that the disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was justified as per the amended provisions requiring quantification by the prescribed authority. However, the tribunal allowed the MEIS receipts as capital in nature and not taxable, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had not considered the expenses incurred by the assessee for religious purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh analysis.

The Tribunal noted that the Rectification Deed was not available during the reassessment proceedings. Since the assessee agreed to produce all documents before the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh reassessment order after considering all necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural defect and not a substantive condition for claiming exemption. The denial of exemption solely on technical grounds of delayed filing is not justified, especially when the form is available before the intimation is passed or during appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the evidentiary value of the seized documents, finding they were not 'dumb documents' and were corroborated by the AO's analysis. The Tribunal also upheld the rejection of retracted statements and affidavits by employees, deeming them self-serving. The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had reduced the profit rates applied by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the documents seized during the search, including the Rojmel account, had evidentiary value as they pertained to the assessee and their analysis by the AO was not controverted. Retractions of statements by employees were considered self-serving and did not negate the value of the seized documents. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's contentions and found no fault with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the evidentiary value of the seized documents and the rejection of affidavits.

The Tribunal upheld the evidentiary value of the seized documents, finding them to be comprehensive and corroborated. It agreed that the 'Rojmel' account provided a detailed record of cash transactions, including sales, purchases, and investments. The Tribunal also noted that retractions of earlier statements by employees were self-serving and lacked merit.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's plea for an opportunity to furnish documents and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the processing of the return under section 143(1) was invalid because the Assessing Officer (CPC) failed to provide the mandatory prior notice to the assessee before making the adjustment/disallowance, as required by the first proviso to section 143(1)(a). This failure violates the principle of natural justice ('audi alteram partem').

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's medical hardship and the need to decide matters on merits. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the cases to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee must cooperate and present evidence. Costs were imposed for past non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents have evidentiary value and could not be treated as 'dumb documents'. The assessee's contentions regarding the nature of transactions and retraction of statements were not accepted.

The Tribunal upheld the evidentiary value of the seized documents, noting their corroboration and detailed analysis by the AO. It was found that the AO had meticulously analyzed the data, and the assessee's claims of 'dumb documents' and retracted statements were not sufficient to discard the findings.

The Tribunal found that the documents seized during the search had evidentiary value and were not 'dumb documents' as claimed by the assessee. The AO's detailed analysis and corroboration of entries were found to be sound. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of retracted statements as self-serving and agreed with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the evidentiary value of seized documents and affidavits.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions regarding the evidentiary value of seized documents and the AO's analysis of unaccounted cash transactions. The Tribunal upheld the AO's findings that the seized documents had evidentiary value and rejected the assessee's contentions about agency-based transactions and retracted statements.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents had evidentiary value and were not mere 'dumb documents.' The AO's meticulous analysis and corroboration of entries were not effectively controverted by the assessee. Retractions of statements by employees were considered self-serving.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents (loose papers, Rojmel, software data) had evidentiary value as they pertained to the assessee and were meticulously analyzed and corroborated by the AO. Retractions of statements were considered self-serving. The AO's approach of applying profit rates to unaccounted transactions was upheld in principle.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents had evidentiary value and were not 'dumb documents' as contended by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the AO's findings regarding the existence of unaccounted transactions but noted that the CIT(A) had reduced the profit rates applied to these transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the evidentiary value of the seized documents, rejecting the contention that they were 'dumb documents'. It agreed with the AO that the Rojmel account and other digital records comprehensively documented unaccounted transactions. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's involvement in agency-based sales and noted the AO's application of different profit rates for direct sales versus facilitation transactions. The Tribunal also found no fault with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the evidentiary value of seized documents and the rejection of retracted statements.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents had evidentiary value, and the AO's analysis and reconstruction of accounts were not flawed. The assessee's contention that the transactions were purely agency-based was not fully accepted, but the profit rates applied by the AO were found to be excessive.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents have evidentiary value and were not 'dumb documents'. The AO's analysis, corroborated with various records and bank transactions, was found to be meticulous. The assessee's claim of agency-based transactions and retraction of statements were not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the seized documents, despite the assessee's claims, had evidentiary value as they pertained to the assessee and their analysis by the AO was not controverted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the evidentiary value of seized documents and the rejection of retractions. However, it found that the CIT(A) had already reduced the profit rates applied by the AO, and the appeals by both assessee and revenue were against these reduced rates.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide substantial documents. However, to serve the interests of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's medical hardship and the need for substantial justice over technicalities, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause (medical hardship) from properly prosecuting the case before lower authorities. Citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting one opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 were satisfied. The PCIT's observation that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure on unsecured loans was considered valid.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the VRS is exempt from tax under section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, following the precedent set by co-ordinate benches. The assessee was eligible for exemption of such compensation and refund of TDS.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme should be treated as exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal found the assessee eligible for full tax exemption on the received compensation.

The Tribunal found that the sale value, purchase cost, and cost of improvement of the property were not in dispute. The fixed deposits made out of the sale consideration were also not disputed. The Tribunal decided to adjudicate the issue on merits to serve the interest of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and the ex-parte rejection orders, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department. The matters were set aside to the CIT(Exemption) to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to furnish necessary documents for registration.

The tribunal will dispose of the cross-appeals by a common order, addressing the common issues of challenging the reopening of assessment, disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, and additions under Section 115JB. The CIT(A) had confirmed the reopening but partly allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity for a hearing on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directed the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, and instructed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, specifically a tax invoice and bank statements, proving the withdrawal of 150,000 AED from their UAE business account and its subsequent remittance to India. This established the source of the funds.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid. The original assessment order had merged with the CIT(A)'s order, and the AO sought to reopen based on a change of opinion without any fresh material. Moreover, the reopening was initiated beyond the four-year period without fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submission and supporting documents, which was a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits after considering the submissions and obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by rejecting the application solely based on the trust's constitution without a specific finding that the trust's income was actually applied for the benefit of a particular community. The matter was set aside and remanded to the CIT(E) to re-examine the application of income.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order could not be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Adjustments to book profit for CSR expenses are not permissible under section 115JB as per Supreme Court and Delhi High Court rulings. Similarly, disallowances under section 14A cannot be added to book profit for MAT calculation, especially when the assessee's tax liability is under MAT provisions.