ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on account of the technical defect of selecting an incorrect clause in Form No.10AB should not defeat the substantive claim. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to allow the assessee to file a fresh application under the correct provision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted necessary documents to explain the credit entries and transactions. The AO's additions were made without proper verification and consideration of the evidence, leading to a quashing of the assessment orders.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish necessary documents and substantiate its claim for both registration and approval.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the cash deposits were explained by prior withdrawals and agricultural income. The Tribunal noted the assessee's medical condition prevented full contestation before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the rejection of the 12AB registration was primarily due to non-compliance and lack of opportunity. For the 80G approval, its rejection was consequential to the 12AB registration issue. Therefore, both matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to furnish documents for 12A registration. Since the 80G approval was rejected based on the 12A registration, that matter was also restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish necessary documents and substantiate its claim for both registration and approval.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any specific finding of violation of Section 269SS by the assessee. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable in the absence of such a finding.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified, considering the affidavits of family members and bank records provided by the assessee, along with the subsequent cancellation of the deal and return of funds.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks and dividend income from co-operative institutions are eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The addition on account of the reserve account was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found it unjustified to entirely reject the assessee's explanation solely based on a sales figure mismatch, especially since the assessee claimed to have documentary evidence. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that proportionate expenses are deductible against interest income under Section 57. It further ruled that interest earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the genuine reason for non-appearance. It also noted that the land sold was agricultural and thus not a capital asset, and that Section 50C was wrongly applied.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing that additions on account of liabilities should be confined to 15% of the total business turnover, and allowed claims related to opening capital and Section 80C deduction due to sufficient evidence. The addition for undisclosed business receipts was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition as the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence for cash sales, and the Assessing Officer failed to point out specific defects in the books of account or prove the sales were bogus. Treating the sale proceeds as unexplained income would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 270A was not justified as the assessee genuinely believed the donation was eligible for deduction. The Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb of Section 270A attracted or satisfy the ingredients of sub-section (9).

The Tribunal found that the assessee had adduced sufficient cause for the delay due to the consultant's failure and the assessee's lack of technical knowledge. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal found the disallowance of Rs. 22.20 lakhs to be unjustified given the exempt income earned. It considered it fit to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the amount, i.e., Rs. 2.20 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries into the suspicious transactions, including the source of funds provided by M/s. Rati Diamond Pvt. Ltd. The PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act as the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that no addition was warranted for loans received from Shri Vijay J Patel (HUF) and Shiv Transport (Prop. Nikita D Patel), and also for the loan from Shri Girsihbhai T Patel, as sufficient evidence and source details were provided and ignored by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the corpus donation should be treated as a capital receipt and the tax computation was incorrect. The registration under Section 12AA obtained by the trust was not considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the issue involved reconsideration of purchases and ledger accounts. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order was a procedural irregularity and not a fatal flaw, as the DIN was generated and communicated separately. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from co-operative banks and dividend income from co-operative institutions are eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The addition on account of the reserve account was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with law. The receipt on surrender of the pension policy could not be taxed as income from other sources, considering the provisions of Section 80CCC(2) and the facts of the case.

The Tribunal remanded the issues related to deductions under sections 80GGC and 80DDB back to the Assessing Officer for verification. The disallowance under section 80D and exemption under section 10(5) were allowed. The levy of interest under section 234C was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to justify its exemption claims and did not submit details of expenses. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the application and submissions.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessee's bank statement regarding cash deposits and an NEFT transaction. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of an eligible industrial undertaking creates a fresh 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80-IC. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of an eligible industrial undertaking creates a fresh 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80-IC. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of an eligible industrial undertaking creates a fresh 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80-IC. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal noted that for the issue concerning the deletion of addition under Section 69A on account of alleged on-money received for land at Godhavi (Issue 1), the Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. For the issue regarding the validity of the assessment order under Section 153A due to alleged non-compliance with Section 153D (Issue 2), the assessee's grounds were dismissed as covered against the assessee by a previous decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta. Regarding the addition of seized cash of Rs. 9,50,000/- under Section 69A (Issue 3), the Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee liberty to present arguments and supporting documents. The Tribunal also noted that appeals in the assessee's case for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21 had been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, implying a similar approach for related issues.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, held that interest received from a Nationalized Bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). However, proportionate relatable expenditure proximate to earning such interest should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of an eligible industrial undertaking creates a fresh 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80-IC. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of an eligible industrial undertaking creates a fresh 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80-IC. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of an eligible industrial undertaking creates a fresh 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80-IC. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that substantial expansion of an eligible industrial undertaking creates a fresh 'initial assessment year', entitling the assessee to claim 100% deduction under Section 80-IC. The revenue's appeal on this point was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the application. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to submit its explanations and submissions.

The tribunal dismissed the ground related to the disallowance of late PF/ESIC contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify and consider the refund claim.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2)(a) applies only to expenditure claimed in computing business income. Since the share acquisition was treated as a capital investment and not routed through the Profit and Loss account, the section was not applicable. The AO also failed to establish the fair market value of the shares.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the donations was insufficient, and the case laws relied upon were factually distinct. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verification.