ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Exemption) did not examine whether the religious expenditure exceeded the 5% limit. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) to verify this specific aspect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the credits, including ledger accounts, sale bills, and bank statements, demonstrating genuine sales transactions. The AO had not confronted the assessee with contrary evidence, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was justified.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares was doubtful, as evidenced by the pool holding certificate issued during the period of suspension and the assessee's failure to explain the source of cash for the purchase. The addition under Section 68 as unexplained credit was upheld.

The Tribunal held that sales below Rs. 2 lakhs are permissible without PAN details and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was justified. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding an ad-hoc addition to GP, finding it unjustified without proper confrontation.

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 reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the submissions and explanations provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the assessee to file a reconciliation of turnover with the Assessing Officer, considering the GST component. The AO was instructed to decide the issue based on this reconciliation and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case. It found that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as two views were possible and the AO had adopted a permissible one.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and evidence to demonstrate the receipt and benefit of intra-group services. Therefore, the TPO's approach of determining the ALP at NIL was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that no separate transfer pricing adjustment for notional interest on receivables is warranted if the working capital adjustment has been granted and the assessee has a uniform policy of not charging interest from both associated enterprises and non-associated enterprises. Regarding the Section 80G deduction, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the factual eligibility of the donations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and evidence to demonstrate the receipt and benefit of intra-group services. Therefore, the TPO's approach of determining the ALP at NIL was not sustainable.

The tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was invalid as the AO relied solely on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing without independent verification. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the TNMM method at the entity level was the most appropriate method for transfer pricing, directing the deletion of the TP adjustment. For the corporate tax addition regarding reversal of provisions, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification due to potential double taxation and procedural infirmities.

The Tribunal held that the execution and registration of sale deeds alone do not constitute a completed transfer if substantial consideration remains unpaid and possession is not handed over. The Tribunal considered the assessee's evidence, including legal notices and confirmation deeds, to support the claim that the transfer was completed in AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to insufficient reasons for reopening and that the additions made were beyond the scope of Section 148. Even on merits, the Tribunal found no justification for the additions under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in allowing deduction under Section 54F as the conditions regarding timing of investment were not satisfied. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer did not conduct sufficient independent verification regarding loan repayment, TDS, and the lender's financial capacity. Therefore, the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the entire transaction value could not be added under Section 68, and only the profit element embedded in such transactions could be taxed. This decision followed a previous order of the Tribunal on identical facts.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, deeming it crucial for proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for fresh adjudication considering these new evidences.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of adjustments, finding that management services were actual business support and not shareholder activities, and that the assessee's manufacturing margin was at arm's length after considering corrected comparable margins.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer did not conduct sufficient independent verification regarding loan repayment, TDS, and the lender's financial capacity. Therefore, the matter was restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the entire transaction value could not be added under Section 68, and only the profit element embedded in such transactions could be taxed. This decision followed a previous order of the Tribunal on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking Section 154 proceedings to recharacterize the income. The issue of whether the disclosed income was business income or unexplained income under Section 69A was debatable and outside the scope of rectification.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reassessment proceedings were initiated in violation of Section 151A and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022. The approval for reassessment was also found to be mechanical.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee had established the availability of the opening cash balance and the Revenue failed to provide contrary material. Consequently, the application of Section 115BBE was also deemed untenable.

The Tribunal held that the addition for property investments was unsustainable as the payments were demonstrably made in an earlier financial year. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to bank deposits, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and the Assessing Officer failed to bring contrary material on record.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 17,11,13,551/- made by the AO/TPO for intra-group services was unsustainable in law. This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case, affirmed by the Gujarat High Court.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return earlier, which was due to a dispute with her tax consultant. Therefore, the assessee could not be deemed to have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to low household withdrawals, upholding the addition. However, it allowed the appeal concerning outstanding creditors, directing deletion of the addition. The ground regarding transportation expenses was dismissed, confirming the disallowance.

The CIT(A) held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the Revenue could not controvert the factual finding that all facts were disclosed and that the reopening was based on a change of opinion.

For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the rejection of books and the GP addition, restoring the issue to the AO. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance of Section 80G deduction was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had provided only one opportunity for hearing and that there was a mistake in the assessee's application regarding the section applied for. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to allow another opportunity for compliance and rectification.

The Tribunal held that even though the assessee may have illegally collected Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) by making sales, the cash deposited represented genuine sales from its business activity. Therefore, it could not be treated as unexplained income under the Income Tax Act.

For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding the rejection of books and the GP addition, restoring the issue to the AO. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance of Section 80G deduction was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's circumstances. It held that the CIT(A) erred in estimating agricultural income without proper basis and that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated agricultural activity and income.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh decision. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that assessees should not be punished for bona fide mistakes, especially given the confusion surrounding recent amendments. The CIT(E) was directed to treat the application under the correct clause and decide it on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the effective delay was only 18 days. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order as it was passed in the name of a deceased assessee.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had sufficiently established his business activity and that the bank credits pertained to business receipts, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's technical ground regarding the admission of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered the submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to allow another opportunity for hearing and re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the Form 26AS was available during the original assessment and the AO did not record satisfaction for income escapement. The addition made was also not sustainable as it was on an issue different from the reason for reopening.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO is directed to verify the new evidence and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed it to re-adjudicate the 80G application after first deciding the issue of 12A registration. This was done to allow the assessee an opportunity to obtain the necessary 12A registration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application mechanically without considering the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application after only one opportunity was against natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to allow another opportunity for the assessee to be heard and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own decision in the assessee's preceding assessment years. It was established that the transactions belonged to the assessee's HUF, not the individual assessee, and thus the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte. The penalty appeal was also restored.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to factually demonstrate that the assessee received an accommodation entry. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not supplied with the statement of a key witness and cross-examination was not allowed.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee can make additional claims before appellate authorities. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit on account of delayed filing of Form 67 was not justified.