ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the evidence and the assessee's submissions, concluding that the addition was based on a misidentification of the ledger entries.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 14A was unsustainable due to the Assessing Officer's mechanical application of Rule 8D without recording proper satisfaction and because the disallowance exceeded the exempt income. The disallowance under section 57 was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to late deposit of employee PF/ESI, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services. The ground regarding interest on late TDS was dismissed as not pressed. The disallowance of proportionate interest was deleted, finding no nexus between borrowed funds and interest-free advances. The issue of duty drawback was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The tribunal held that while the assessee incurred expenditure for construction and renovation, the lack of proper billing prevented the full claim. However, the entire cost of improvement should not be disallowed. The addition should be restricted to a certain extent, considering the expenditure incurred.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. It further held that DTAA provisions override the Act, and the rules cannot be contrary to the Act, thus allowing the FTC claim.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction. It found that the bank accounts of the political parties were used by accommodation entry providers, and the donations were layered through various accounts, with cash ultimately being returned.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny unless the case is converted to Complete Scrutiny. Since the addition was made outside the defined scope, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily added back the excise duty on a protective basis in a subsequent return to claim deduction in the year of payment. Therefore, the addition under Section 43B in the current year was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and admitted the additional evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC. It found that the donation was merely an accommodation entry, as the political party was involved in providing bogus donation entries and systematic financial maneuvers to legitimize illicit money.

The Tribunal held that the details submitted by the assessee regarding TDS disallowance, bank interest, and unexplained investment were not properly verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, these issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction for leave encashment as claimed in the return of income under Section 10(10AA) of the Act, as the limit was increased to Rs. 25,00,000 by a notification.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain its claim for deduction under Section 10AA and the receipt of payments in foreign exchange. The penalty appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the outcome of the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain its claim for deduction under Section 10AA and the receipt of payments in foreign exchange. The penalty appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the outcome of the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed both grounds of appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,28,30,000/-. The Tribunal noted that the difference between the DVO's valuation and the registered sale deed was approximately 6.42%, which is within the permissible range of estimation error and judicially recognized tolerance limits (up to 10-15%). The Tribunal agreed that such marginal variations cannot, by themselves, give rise to a presumption of understatement of consideration or receipt of on-money, especially when the DVO's report was obtained nearly five years after the transaction. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Revenue's ground was devoid of merits. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 2,50,000/-. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee claimed only 50% of the donation and that the donee trust's registration was effective from 31-05-2017, making the donation made on 07-04-2017 ineligible for deduction for the full amount. The CIT(A)'s partial allowance was found to be correct, and the Revenue's ground was dismissed as devoid of merits. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain its claim for deduction under Section 10AA and the receipt of payments in foreign exchange. The penalty appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the outcome of the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the additions on account of unsecured loans under Section 68 (Issue 1), the CIT(A) had deleted additions of Rs. 86,50,001/- and further deleted Rs. 5,00,000/- (Aavkar Corporation), Rs. 48,00,000/- (Bhadresh R Reshwala), Rs. 10,00,000/- (Devendra Vaghela), and Rs. 4,40,082/- (Grace Appt. CHSL) after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of these amounts, holding that the assessee had successfully established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. For AY 2019-20, the addition of Rs. 9,08,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was deleted as it was stated to be repaid. Regarding the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) (Issue 2), the CIT(A) confirmed a disallowance of Rs. 51,55,381/- and deleted the balance. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order concerning this disallowance, stating the revenue could not pinpoint any mistake. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance of Rs. 51,55,381/- under Section 36(1)(iii) was confirmed, and the ground was dismissed. The addition of Rs. 18,11,000/- as unexplained receipts and Rs. 2,70,000/- as unexplained cash expenditure (Issue 3) for AY 2019-20 were dismissed as no substantive submissions were made by the assessee. The addition of interest expenditure of Rs. 9,53,186/- on alleged bogus loan from Narayani Enterprise was allowed, as it was already decided in favour of the assessee in paragraph 6 of the order. The ground challenging the assessment under Section 153A and the ground for disallowance under Section 14A were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section 153C of the Act because the search was conducted at the premises of a third party (Shri Chaturbhai B. Kotadia), not the assessee. Section 153C is applicable to persons other than those referred to in Section 153A. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the entire addition on account of long-term capital gain. The Tribunal noted that the 'banakhat' indicated a higher sale consideration than what was declared, and the assessee conveniently omitted Rs. 1 crore shown in the agreement. The Tribunal also found that the DVO's valuation was lower than the assessee's claim, and the assessee's registered valuer report raised suspicions that were not clarified. Furthermore, the assessee failed to provide details of selling agricultural produce, making the claim for Section 54B exemption unsustainable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was justified. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the AO's invocation of Section 153C and the satisfaction recorded. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, as the reasons recorded were vague and lacked specific, tangible material. Furthermore, the addition made under Section 69A was unsustainable on merits due to lack of corroborating evidence and denial of cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2020-21 was bad in law as it should have been passed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3). For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal's findings on merits from the lead case would apply.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2020-21 was bad in law as it should have been passed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3). For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal's findings on merits from the lead case would apply.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) is to consider the application afresh, taking into account the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with lower authorities and failure to submit documents. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source of the cash as past withdrawals from taxed income, supported by substantial past returned incomes. The rejection of the explanation by lower authorities was based on presumptions rather than contrary material.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to ICICI Bank, finding it a minor residual difference in an NRE account explained by foreign remittances. The addition related to HDFC Bank was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of verification.

The Tribunal held that since the AO did not make any addition on the issue for which the case was reopened (accommodation entries from Dishita Gems), the subsequent additions on other issues were not sustainable. The reopening itself was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities and that the delay was marginal and not mala fide. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of investment with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) to be decided along with the quantum appeal. This was done because the quantum appeal had been restored by the ITAT.

The tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unsecured loans were deleted by the CIT(A) after the assessee provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was partly confirmed.

The tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer for unsecured loans were deleted by the CIT(A) after the assessee provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was partly confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the AO failed to establish a nexus between the assessee and the alleged accommodation entry provider with specific material, and lacked cogent evidence to support the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order restoring the issue to the AO was unwarranted as the AO had already examined the evidence and accepted the source of investment in his remand report. The addition made in the assessee's hands was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the addition was based on seized documents, taxing the entire purchase amount was incorrect. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the alleged purchases.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, as the reasons recorded were vague and lacked specific, tangible material. Furthermore, the addition made under Section 69A was unsustainable on merits due to lack of corroborating evidence and denial of cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the gift received from the father-in-law, being a relative, through banking channels is not taxable under Section 68, especially when the donor has expired. However, additions from partnership firms were confirmed due to lack of supporting documentation.

The Tribunal held that interest income from non-members is taxable under Section 56 and expenses claimed were not wholly and exclusively for earning such income. However, deduction under Section 80P was allowed as the return was filed within the extended time under Section 139(4), following precedent.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2020-21 was bad in law as it should have been passed under Section 153C, not Section 143(3). For AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal's findings on merits from the lead case would apply.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had already complied with the directions of the PCIT during fresh assessment proceedings. The AO re-examined the land sale, treated it as taxable capital gains, and allowed the deduction under Section 54B, rendering the revisionary proceedings infructuous.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain its claim for deduction under Section 10AA and the receipt of payments in foreign exchange. The penalty appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the outcome of the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding the additions on account of unsecured loans under Section 68 (Issue 1), the CIT(A) had deleted additions of Rs. 86,50,001/- and further deleted Rs. 5,00,000/- (Aavkar Corporation), Rs. 48,00,000/- (Bhadresh R Reshwala), Rs. 10,00,000/- (Devendra Vaghela), and Rs. 4,40,082/- (Grace Appt. CHSL) after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of these amounts, holding that the assessee had successfully established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. For AY 2019-20, the addition of Rs. 9,08,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was deleted as it was stated to be repaid. Regarding the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) (Issue 2), the CIT(A) confirmed a disallowance of Rs. 51,55,381/- and deleted the balance. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order concerning this disallowance, stating the revenue could not pinpoint any mistake. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance of Rs. 51,55,381/- under Section 36(1)(iii) was confirmed, and the ground was dismissed. The addition of Rs. 18,11,000/- as unexplained receipts and Rs. 2,70,000/- as unexplained cash expenditure (Issue 3) for AY 2019-20 were dismissed as no substantive submissions were made by the assessee. The addition of interest expenditure of Rs. 9,53,186/- on alleged bogus loan from Narayani Enterprise was allowed, as it was already decided in favour of the assessee in paragraph 6 of the order. The ground challenging the assessment under Section 153A and the ground for disallowance under Section 14A were not pressed by the assessee and were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 44,50,000/- as the assessee failed to provide sufficient details of expenses related to the investment prior to agricultural income. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals for subsequent assessment years regarding remuneration from the trust.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly examine the assessee's reconciliation and supporting evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require an adequate opportunity to be heard. While acknowledging the assessee's lack of diligence, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee failed to establish the source of funds and creditworthiness of the family members and others. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) directed the AO to consider peak credit and credits from mutual fund redemptions after due verification.

The Tribunal found that the commission income was ancillary to the assessee's business and was already reflected in the transportation charges and dealer's commission, which were accounted for in the profit and loss statement. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to furnish all necessary details. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 44,50,000/- as the assessee failed to provide sufficient details of expenses related to the investment prior to agricultural income. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals for subsequent assessment years regarding remuneration from the trust.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided agricultural sales bills, land records, and a Talati certificate. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of condonation of delay required a fresh examination by the CIT(E) in a justice-oriented manner, considering the bona fide mistake and evolving compliance framework. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was unjustified as the notices and order were not effectively communicated to the trustees, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.