ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — May 2026

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, 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, 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 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 the reward received from the US SEC is taxable income. While Section 56(2)(x) might not be directly applicable, the reward is taxable under the residuary provision of Section 56(1) as 'Income from other sources'.

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 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 held that the disallowance of expenses related to debatable issues of capital vs. revenue expenditure or eligibility under Section 35D, and not a case of willful underreporting or misreporting of income. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by producing certificates from Bank of Baroda confirming that the three accounts were fixed deposits opened on 17-08-2013 and closed on 28-04-2014 and 07-01-2015 respectively. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Unit under the Faceless Regime made the addition of Rs. 52,00,000/- under section 69A without proper verification of the assessee's submissions. Furthermore, the RTI information furnished by the AO did not specify the amount of Rs. 52,00,000/- as determined by the AO. Therefore, the entire addition made in the hands of the assessee was deemed to be without justification and liable to be deleted. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the grounds related to the validity of reopening under section 148 and section 151 approvals, focusing instead on the factual nature of the bank accounts and the lack of verification for the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature, disentitling it to exemption under Section 2(15) proviso and Section 13(8). However, the addition of TDS was deleted based on prior Tribunal rulings, and depreciation claims were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. However, considering the submission of repayment of a portion of the loan, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on presumption and not concrete evidence. The developer's admission of receiving on-money was general and not specifically linked to the assessee, and no evidence of cash payment by the assessee was found.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the AO's assessment, noting the AO flip-flopped between sections and made additions without proper verification. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for verification of facts, including the cancellation of sale deeds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature, disentitling it to exemption under Section 2(15) proviso and Section 13(8). However, the addition of TDS was deleted based on prior Tribunal rulings, and depreciation claims were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature, making it ineligible for exemption under Section 2(15) proviso and Section 13(8). However, it allowed the deletion of TDS additions based on prior tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature, disentitling it to exemption under Section 2(15) proviso and Section 13(8). However, the addition of TDS was deleted based on prior Tribunal rulings, and depreciation claims were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for an abandoned project, even if capitalized as work-in-progress, are revenue in nature if they do not bring into existence any capital asset or enduring benefit. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for amortization of forward cover premium and depreciation on self-propelled vehicles, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to represent its case, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000 to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

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

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as the AO had relied on a 'borrowed belief' from the ACB report without applying his own mind or conducting independent inquiry. The Tribunal quashed the AO's order.

The Tribunal found that the evidence regarding the payment for the machinery purchase required proper verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication of both the purchase and depreciation issues.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P concerning interest earned from a cooperative bank and a commercial bank was debatable. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 270A for misreporting or under-reporting of income was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that since the same amount was already added in the hands of the HUF, making an addition in the assessee's hands would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the source of the amount in the assessee's hands was explained.

The assessee submitted that with the passing of the fresh assessment order, they had no further grievance against the revision order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature, disentitling it to exemption under Section 2(15) proviso and Section 13(8). However, the addition of TDS was deleted based on prior Tribunal rulings, and depreciation claims were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature, disentitling it to exemption under Section 2(15) proviso and Section 13(8). However, the addition of TDS was deleted based on prior Tribunal rulings, and depreciation claims were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash on hand from previous withdrawals and disclosed balances, which explained the demonetisation period deposits. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not earn any tax-exempt income during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision that the explanation to Section 14A is prospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A) order, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. This was subject to the assessee paying Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. It directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate capital gains by considering the actual sale price of Rs. 2.5 crores and allowing the cost of acquisition with indexation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has consistently treated share transactions as investments and the income/loss as capital gains/losses. The Revenue could not provide any distinguishing facts for the year under consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rightly directed the assessee to approach the jurisdictional Pr. Commissioner for condonation of delay and re-registration under the correct provisions of Section 12A(1)(ac)(i). The disallowance of exemption was due to the assessee's failure to follow the correct registration process.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 98,00,000/- could not be treated as an accommodation entry solely based on general statements without establishing a nexus between the cheque received and cash deposits in the lender's account. The matter was set aside to the AO for further inquiry and verification of loan repayment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed generated cash from agricultural produce based on agreements with land owners, and the expenses were also explained. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since Form 10B was filed before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction under Section 11 should be allowed. The order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the mistake was a bona fide arithmetical error by the consultant, not a misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Therefore, the penalty for misreporting of income under Section 270A was not attracted.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily on technical grounds without examining the trust's objects and genuineness. Considering principles of natural justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee.

The tribunal held that the assessee bank cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) because it was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The obligation to deduct tax was eclipsed by these judicial orders.

The tribunal held that the assessee bank cannot be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) because it was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court. The obligation to deduct tax was eclipsed by these judicial orders.