ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal held that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) were sent to an incorrect branch, thus the genuineness of purchases could not be verified. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that Section 94(7) applies to the entire dividend received, not just the exempt portion, as it is an anti-avoidance measure to curb dividend stripping. The AO's detailed analysis of transactions was found to be correct.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23,44,898/- on account of commission income was confirmed. The Assessing Officer computed the commission income at 0.20% of the facilitated bogus donations aggregating to ₹1,64,74,63,614/-, resulting in ₹32,94,927/-. Since the assessee declared only ₹9,50,029/-, the balance of ₹23,44,898/- was added as undisclosed commission income. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this addition. Regarding the cash of ₹1,43,41,710/-, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that it represented unexplained money. The assessee's initial statement during the search admitted the cash belonged to operators of the accommodation entry network. The subsequent explanation that it belonged to family members was considered an afterthought and lacked credibility. The Tribunal relied on the evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 132(4) and cited Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). The contention that the cash should be treated as business income was rejected, citing CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC) and Fakir Mohammed Haji Hasan vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj), which held that unexplained money found during search cannot automatically be treated as business income and can be assessed under sections 69A. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had granted telescoping benefit for undisclosed commission income while computing the addition on account of unexplained cash, confirming the addition only to the extent of the unexplained balance. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the appeal. Grounds 7 and 9 were not specifically dealt with as they were not argued before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,91,08,899/- on account of under-invoicing of sales, as decided in a previous case (Shri Shivkumar L. Gogia in IT(SS)A No. 66/Ahd/2025), was applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue was upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs 3,02,81,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the "Orbit Project," the Tribunal found that this ground was identical to a ground adjudicated in the case of Sh. Sagar Gogia (IT(SS)A/79/2025). Following that decision, the addition of Rs. 3,02,81,000/- was deleted, and the assessee's ground was allowed. All other grounds raised by the assessee in that appeal were not pressed and were dismissed. The Tribunal's decision on the addition of Rs. 2,91,74,000/- is not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests it was also resolved in favor of the assessee or deleted based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct demonstrated consistent and deliberate non-compliance during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), and even before the ITAT, an appeal should ordinarily be decided on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for de-novo consideration. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues afresh after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee and considering the material and submissions filed. However, considering the assessee's negligence and lack of diligence, the Tribunal imposed a cost of ₹20,000/- on the assessee, to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, with proof of payment to be furnished before the CIT(A) at the time of the fresh hearing. The issue of the validity of the section 148 notice was not expressly decided, as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the period of holding by the previous owner (trust) should be included, making the asset a long-term capital asset. Exemption under section 54EC was allowed, but the issue of section 54 exemption was remanded for verification of actual purchase of a new residential property.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was bona fide, made based on prevailing judicial pronouncements, and all material facts were disclosed. The voluntary withdrawal during assessment proceedings, coupled with the debatable nature of the issue, meant the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to appear and furnish evidence before the CIT(A), the substantial amounts involved warranted a fresh examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of its activities and compliance with statutory requirements. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed due to an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1109 days.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence, including the assessee's admissions and seized material, which established involvement in bogus billing and commission income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily due to the assessee's non-responsive conduct, without a detailed examination of the evidence. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the addition was made primarily due to a lack of documentary evidence concerning the transaction with M/s Brand Cluster LLP. The Tribunal found that further verification was required and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct independent inquiries, including issuing summons, to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions and the trade liability before adjudicating the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The matter is restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing. A nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a donation made as CSR expenditure, even if disallowed under Section 37(1), can still qualify for deduction under Section 80G if the donee institution is approved and other conditions are met. The disallowance by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that while the quantum assessment itself was restored for de novo consideration, the penalty was imposed for non-compliance with notices. However, considering the overall conduct of the assessee and the restoration of the quantum matter, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10CCB is a procedural requirement, and a delay in filing does not defeat the substantive benefit of deduction under section 80-IAC, especially when the eligibility conditions are otherwise met. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents where similar procedural delays were not considered fatal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance throughout the assessment and appellate proceedings. Despite the assessee's conduct, the Tribunal granted one final opportunity for de-novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and issues were not properly examined. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 125 days in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the deposits were out of the closure proceeds of a previous FDR and reinvested. Since the Revenue could not rebut this factual aspect, the addition was not sustainable and ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application primarily on the ground that the assessee did not hold a valid registration under Section 12A/12AB. However, the assessee produced a provisional registration certificate under Section 12A in Form No. 10AC, which was valid at the time of application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to properly prosecute the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the search operation in the Darshanam Group, the issues require adjudication on merits. Principles of natural justice necessitate affording another opportunity.

The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee and their lack of cooperation with the lower authorities. However, considering the interest of justice and the documents filed, the Tribunal imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the amounts withdrawn were duly paid to the members of the Primary Milk Co-operative Society and the CIT(A) had incorrectly appreciated the facts. Therefore, no addition was called for on this account.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee and found that the Revenue had not had an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further verification.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had already declared income under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. Considering the overall facts and the non-material variation between the income declared and the amounts in question, the tribunal concluded that no further addition was warranted in this case.

The tribunal found that the Revenue could not justify the 20% ad-hoc disallowance, noting no change in business nature from A.Y. 2013-14 when only a 2% disallowance was made. It directed the AO to restrict the disallowance on truck rent expenses to 2% (Rs. 7,04,00,166/-) and to re-verify the unpaid motor truck rent after providing another opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing necessary inquiry and verification of documentary evidence. The assessee is to provide all relevant documents. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that an amount of Rs. 27,40,000/- was considered twice by the Revenue and directed the JAO to rectify this under Section 154. The assessee was also directed to furnish reconciliation for TDS credit to the JAO.

The Tribunal considered the written request from the assessee and decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from a search prior to April 1, 2021, and thus the amended provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, and 151 of the Act would not apply. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked proper discussion of the grounds of appeal and submissions.

The Tribunal, to meet the ends of justice, directed the AO to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a fresh assessment order, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was set aside for de-novo assessment, the penalty under Section 270A cannot survive. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside and deleted, with a direction to consider penalty proceedings at the time of passing the fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal found that while the claimed cash sales of Rs. 39,88,590 in October 2016 were inflated and not genuinely explained, the entire deposit could not be treated as unexplained. Considering previous cash sales trends, Rs. 10,00,000 was estimated for genuine cash sales and Rs. 5,00,000 for personal savings, totaling Rs. 15,00,000 as explained. The remaining Rs. 32,16,000 was confirmed as unexplained.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided comprehensive documentation, including cash books, bank books, bank statements, purchase bills, and sales bills, which detailed cash payments and withdrawals. It found that the assessee had consistently deposited cash in previous years and had furnished all necessary details concerning purchases and sales, thus refuting the CIT(A)'s finding. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal observed that the amount was received from Adarsh Engitech Projects Pvt. Ltd., and the bank statement details provided by the assessee were not considered by the lower authorities. Citing a similar case where the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim of being a mere accommodation entry provider was justified, and therefore, the addition made under section 69 could not be sustained. Consequently, both appeals were allowed.

The tribunal found the assessee's claim of genuine share purchase doubtful due to inconsistencies like shares being unlisted/suspended, lack of demat account details for purchase, and contract notes for sale pertaining to a different company. Merely selling through a stock exchange was deemed insufficient to prove the genuineness of the underlying purchase. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO under Section 68.

The Tribunal condoned the 393-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the genuine difficulties faced by the assessee. It observed that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh de-novo consideration, directing that the assessee be given an opportunity to explain the cash withdrawals in light of its business activities.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee's audited books of account should not have been rejected, and the 12% profit estimation on F&O transactions was arbitrary and without reasonable basis. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on estimated business income was rightly deleted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous as it supported the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal, relying on jurisdictional High Court precedents, ruled that a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the show-cause notice under Section 274 specifies a different default (e.g., "inaccurate particulars") than the one for which the penalty is finally imposed (e.g., "concealment"). The lower authorities erred by not adhering to this principle, rendering the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal, taking into account the assessee's inability to attend the previous hearings before the CIT(A) and the Revenue's lack of objection, decided to set aside the ex-parte order. The matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity for a hearing on the merits of the case and to present all relevant material for a proper appellate order.