ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case and that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence for the additions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found no nexus between interest-bearing loans and interest-free advances, the stock valuation adjustment was tax-neutral, and there was no cessation of liability as per Section 41(1).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence for the unsecured loan. The addition was primarily based on third-party investigation without independent incriminating material against the assessee, and a similar issue with the same lender was decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that unsold units forming part of a builder's stock-in-trade are occupied for business purposes and thus excluded from Section 22 of the Act. The addition made by the AO was not sustained due to the ad-hoc and unverified nature of the computation.

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 fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined the evidence and the basis for the 1% gross profit estimation was not properly substantiated. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined the evidence and the basis for the 1% gross profit estimation was not properly substantiated. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions for the same assessee. It was found that there was no condition applicable for the year under consideration requiring the remittance of foreign exchange for deemed exports to claim the deduction.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their obligations, leading to unintended consequences for genuine charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

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 fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that both parties failed to discharge their responsibilities, leading to unintended consequences for charitable organizations. To protect the interests of justice, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities. However, since the issue remained unadjudicated on merits, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the assessee opted for the new tax regime. If confirmed, the deduction under Section 87A will be allowed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not comprehensively adjudicated the assessee's grounds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the transportation expenses were incurred for a trial ramp before the subcontract and were clarified by a Memorandum of Understanding. The subletting expenses were labour cess and copy charges deducted by the railways, not incurred by the subcontractor. Therefore, both disallowances were deleted.

The tribunal held that the AO's action of treating the cost of acquisition as zero was unjustified and arbitrary, especially since the registered valuer's report remained unrebutted. The additions made by the AO were ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(10B) for the compensation received under the VRS. The Tribunal followed the decisions of its coordinate benches on similar matters.

The tribunal held that the AO's action of treating the cost of acquisition as zero was unjustified and arbitrary, especially since the registered valuer's report remained unrebutted. The additions made by the AO were ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for verification. The AO is to determine if the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was out of GST collected and deposited by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the double levy of surcharge was apparent and directed its deletion. It further ruled that since the assessee's income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, no surcharge was payable, and the income should be re-computed accordingly.

The Tribunal noted contradictions in the assessee's submissions and found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the factual aspects. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the substantial addition and the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.