ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. This was because they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented them from deducting tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. This was because they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented them from deducting tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. This was because they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented them from deducting tax at source.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) with proper notice.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E) with proper notice.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234C is not leviable on capital gains if the advance tax is paid within the financial year, especially if the capital gains arose late in the year. The matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. This was because they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented them from deducting tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening under Section 148 for AY 2015-16, issued after 01.04.2021, was time-barred and without jurisdiction, following Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 43B if the old outstanding professional tax was paid in the current year. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification of the revised tax audit report and payments.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 66,91,500/- for unexplained investment in land, as no evidence was provided. However, the issue of double addition regarding Rs. 20,85,000/- was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO/CPC made a mistake in disallowing the deduction, as the return was filed within the extended period. The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the assessee pursuing rectification remedies with the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-resident and unaware of the proceedings, should be given an opportunity to present her case. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D should be deleted. This was based on the assessee's bonafide belief of not knowing the provisions and the fact that a co-sharer in an identical transaction had their penalty proceedings dropped.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. This was because they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented them from deducting tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. This was because they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court, which prevented them from deducting tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default as they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the demand raised under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default as they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the demand raised under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee branches could not be treated as assessees in default as they were bound to comply with the interim judicial directions of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the demand raised under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) were set aside.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A, relying on a Gujarat High Court decision. The other issues regarding sundry creditors and Section 80JJAA deduction were restored to the AO for fresh verification and speaking orders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the AO's addition was prima facie connected to the reopening, the Tribunal found that complete evidence was not filed and no compliance was made before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a directory requirement, not mandatory, and the DTAA overrides the Act. Therefore, the benefit of foreign tax credit cannot be denied on a technical ground of delay in filing Form 67, especially when the foreign income was disclosed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, despite the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A), granted a final opportunity for adjudication on merits due to the nature of the issues involved.