ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment on this issue.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the statement that the appeal had become infructuous due to subsequent approvals granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire purchase amount was not warranted as the assessee had provided documentary evidence and the corresponding sales were not disturbed. It was decided that only the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that reconstruction expenses incurred to make a purchased residential house habitable form part of the 'cost of the new asset' for Section 54F exemption. The partial disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be for bona fide reasons. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the fact of sale of recharge coupons and subsequent transfer of monies to the service provider were not in dispute and were clear from the record, no addition on account of cash deposits was warranted.

The Tribunal held that a withdrawal by a partner from a firm's capital account does not constitute a loan or deposit as a firm does not have a separate juridical persona distinct from its partners. Therefore, Section 269SS was not violated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and restored the issue for de novo adjudication. The penalty orders were also set aside, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to examine the assessee's cash book and reconcile the cash deposits. Since the cash book explained the source of deposits and no evidence disproved it, the addition under Section 69A could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that a technical error in selecting the clause in the application form should not be fatal, especially when there are no adverse findings regarding the trust's genuineness or activities. The matter was remanded for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to consider the applications afresh, taking into account the submissions and explanations that the assessees will now provide.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to consider the applications afresh, taking into account the submissions and explanations that the assessees will now provide.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matters back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to reconsider the applications afresh, taking into account the submissions and explanations that the assessees will now provide.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) to consider the applications afresh. The assessees should be given an opportunity to submit their explanations and documents.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to consider the applications afresh, taking into account the submissions and explanations that the assessees will now provide.

The Tribunal held that the amount received, including interest, was in the nature of compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land and was therefore exempt from tax. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground related to pending appeals of co-owners due to low tax effect, rendering it academic. The cross-objection challenging the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine and was part of a bogus donation scam, upholding the disallowance of the deduction. The assessee failed to establish that the contribution was a genuine donation eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹14,83,650 was unwarranted as the assessee had provided bank statements reflecting the source of funds. The confirmation of interest and penalty proceedings was also set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing it to adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present her case, subject to a cost of ₹5,000.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the gross profit embedded in the unrecorded transactions, estimating it at 8% of the relevant amount. The assessee failed to provide evidence for a lower profit rate.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is to consider the applications afresh, taking into account the submissions and explanations that the assessees will now provide.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that the donation was bogus and not eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The evidence, including investigation material and statements, established that the recipient political party was involved in providing accommodation entries.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and restored the issue for de novo adjudication. The penalty orders were also set aside, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer, and restored the issue for de novo adjudication. The penalty orders were also set aside, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea to furnish details and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 1000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not fully and comprehensively examined the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after a proper appreciation of the evidence.

The Tribunal held that a common feature in these appeals was the failure of both parties to discharge their respective responsibilities. The assessees' applications were often not accompanied by supporting documents, and the CIT(E) rejected them without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal acknowledged that in some cases, the tax authority lacked sufficient time to await compliance due to the time-bound nature of the disposal of applications. This led to unintended consequences where genuine charitable organizations lost exemption benefits. To serve the interest of justice and protect the rights of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. The assessees were directed to provide correct contact details, submit all supporting documents, and respond to queries without adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessees were cautioned that failure to comply would allow the CIT(E) to adjudicate based on available material. For Section 80G applications, the status of Section 12AB registration was to be considered. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes without findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of third-party information (an excel sheet and a general admission by a developer) without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind. The addition under Section 69A was also quashed as the reassessment itself was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Completion Certificate alone is not conclusive proof of project completion and that subsequent expenditure incurred by the assessee was not disputed. The AO's recomputation was based on an alternative working, not on any defect in the books or suppression of income.