ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal found that the AO's remand report did not identify any discrepancies in the stock register, purchases, or sales. The assessee's explanation for lower profits in earlier years (due to presumptive taxation under Section 44AD) was also accepted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as it was issued beyond the surviving period of limitation, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to consider all evidence, including the remand report, and pass a speaking order on the issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) and condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the refund.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, which had deleted similar additions. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions related to alleged on-money receipts and also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deemed rental income.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, which had deleted similar additions. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions related to alleged on-money receipts and also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deemed rental income.

The Tribunal addressed the issue concerning the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- related to the Kadambari Plotting Scheme. The AO had made this addition based on specific seized documents (Pages 27-28 of Annexure A/3) without considering other contemporaneous documents. The CIT(A) had found that these documents, when read together with Pages 48-49 of Annexure A/1, represented different stages of the same transaction: the purchase and subsequent sale of land at Nasmed. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, supported by Google Maps and the chronological sequence of payments and receipts, that 'Kadambari' was a plotting scheme developed on the purchased land. The CIT(A) also noted that the cash transactions and profits were incorporated in the unaccounted cash book and offered to tax. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that seized documents cannot be read selectively. Since the Revenue did not provide independent evidence to show the properties were distinct, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- made under Section 69. The grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue were dismissed. The judgment mentions that the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that other issues might have been decided differently or were not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, which had deleted similar additions. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions related to alleged on-money receipts and also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deemed rental income.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, which had deleted similar additions. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions related to alleged on-money receipts and also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deemed rental income.

The Tribunal addressed the issue concerning the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- related to the Kadambari Plotting Scheme. The AO had made this addition based on specific seized documents (Pages 27-28 of Annexure A/3) without considering other contemporaneous documents. The CIT(A) had found that these documents, when read together with Pages 48-49 of Annexure A/1, represented different stages of the same transaction: the purchase and subsequent sale of land at Nasmed. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, supported by Google Maps and the chronological sequence of payments and receipts, that 'Kadambari' was a plotting scheme developed on the purchased land. The CIT(A) also noted that the cash transactions and profits were incorporated in the unaccounted cash book and offered to tax. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that seized documents cannot be read selectively. Since the Revenue did not provide independent evidence to show the properties were distinct, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- made under Section 69. The grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue were dismissed. The judgment mentions that the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that other issues might have been decided differently or were not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) and condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the refund.

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, which had deleted similar additions. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions related to alleged on-money receipts and also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding deemed rental income.

The Tribunal addressed the issue concerning the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- related to the Kadambari Plotting Scheme. The AO had made this addition based on specific seized documents (Pages 27-28 of Annexure A/3) without considering other contemporaneous documents. The CIT(A) had found that these documents, when read together with Pages 48-49 of Annexure A/1, represented different stages of the same transaction: the purchase and subsequent sale of land at Nasmed. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, supported by Google Maps and the chronological sequence of payments and receipts, that 'Kadambari' was a plotting scheme developed on the purchased land. The CIT(A) also noted that the cash transactions and profits were incorporated in the unaccounted cash book and offered to tax. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that seized documents cannot be read selectively. Since the Revenue did not provide independent evidence to show the properties were distinct, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- made under Section 69. The grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue were dismissed. The judgment mentions that the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that other issues might have been decided differently or were not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision for earlier assessment years, which had deleted similar additions. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions related to alleged on-money receipts for the current assessment years. The issue of deemed rental income was also decided in favor of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s restriction.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the refund.

The Tribunal addressed the issue concerning the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- related to the Kadambari Plotting Scheme. The AO had made this addition based on specific seized documents (Pages 27-28 of Annexure A/3) without considering other contemporaneous documents. The CIT(A) had found that these documents, when read together with Pages 48-49 of Annexure A/1, represented different stages of the same transaction: the purchase and subsequent sale of land at Nasmed. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, supported by Google Maps and the chronological sequence of payments and receipts, that 'Kadambari' was a plotting scheme developed on the purchased land. The CIT(A) also noted that the cash transactions and profits were incorporated in the unaccounted cash book and offered to tax. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning that seized documents cannot be read selectively. Since the Revenue did not provide independent evidence to show the properties were distinct, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,06,00,210/- made under Section 69. The grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue were dismissed. The judgment mentions that the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that other issues might have been decided differently or were not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to the rejection of genuine charitable activities' applications. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that since the surrendered income was offered to tax in the return, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessees and the Revenue failed to discharge their respective responsibilities. To serve the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted to the Assessees to make out their case for registration/renewal or approval.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide requisite details to the CIT(A) despite several opportunities. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with the assessee directed to submit all relevant documents.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to examine the utilization of the loan amounts for business purposes. If found to be used for business, the interest would be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide necessary documentation to the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, to ensure justice and allow for proper adjudication, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh review.

The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2019-2020, reinstating an addition of INR 1,52,98,000/- based on seized documents. For AY 2014-2015 and AY 2020-2021, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific details of the alleged accommodation entries despite the assessee's denial and requests for substantiation. No evidence was brought on record to prove the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine and was part of an accommodation entry scheme. Mere documentary evidence like bank payments and receipts is insufficient when surrounding circumstances suggest a colourable device for tax evasion.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea that the option under Section 115BAD was filed by mistake. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the taxable income under the old regime as if the option had not been exercised, provided it was not opted for in previous years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the ITAT. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine and was merely an accommodation entry, upholding the disallowance of the deduction. The court noted that mere payment through banking channels and production of receipts are insufficient when there is overwhelming evidence of the recipient party's involvement in fraudulent activities.