ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the project completion method is a recognized accounting practice and the AO's rejection of books lacked cogent evidence. The additions made on account of alleged undisclosed receipts were based on inference rather than concrete proof.

The Tribunal held that the project completion method is a recognized accounting practice and the AO's rejection of books lacked cogent evidence. The additions made on account of alleged undisclosed receipts were based on inference rather than concrete proof.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing details of the third party and evidence that no payments were made by the assessee. The failure of the third party to respond to notices could not be the sole basis for addition in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the grounds on merits and that the assessee's claims required detailed verification. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that meritorious cases should not be dismissed solely on grounds of limitation. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence and calling for a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition for the same assessment year was previously remanded to the AO for proper verification. Consequently, the penalty levied becomes infructuous as the underlying addition is subject to further examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, holding that the compensation received under BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant refunds accordingly.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Jurisdictional AO to verify if the income was already offered as business income. If confirmed, the double addition made by the CPC needs to be deleted.

Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal held that the amount of sales represents gross realization and cannot automatically be regarded as income without considering the cost of goods sold. The seized Excel sheet contained entries for cash purchases, indicating that unaccounted sales were part of trading activity with corresponding costs. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the addition to the profit element embedded in unaccounted sales, as taxes are levied on real income. The Revenue's contention that the entire unaccounted sales should be assessed as income was rejected as it would disregard the cost of goods sold. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's ground. Regarding Ground No. 2, the Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69C is not attracted merely because expenditure is not recorded in regular books; the source of expenditure must be examined. In this case, the seized Excel sheet reflected both unaccounted cash sales (Rs. 1,91,26,455) and cash purchases (Rs. 87,23,105), with sales substantially higher than purchases. The Tribunal found that the availability of cash from unaccounted sales constituted a relevant circumstance for the source of expenditure. The assessee's explanation that cash purchases were funded by unaccounted cash sales was supported by the seized material. Taxing the same unaccounted business activity twice was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, dismissing the Revenue's ground.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 was beyond the scope of Section 153A of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessment year was unabated, and the search action on 30.10.2018 did not yield any incriminating material related to the addition. The AO had issued a notice under Section 142(1) to explain unsecured loans, but no seized material was referenced. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Saumya Construction Pvt Ltd (387 ITR 529) and other pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212, which affirmed the Gujarat High Court's view. These decisions establish that in unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the Revenue's Ground No. 3 was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the deduction claimed under Section 57. Therefore, the PCIT could not invoke Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of substantial justice, remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted a final opportunity to substantiate the source of the cash deposits with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that a claim of deduction, even if ultimately found inadmissible, does not automatically amount to misreporting of income unless the revenue proves deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or fabricated documents. Following a coordinate bench decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for misreporting of income under Section 270A was not sustainable. Following a coordinate bench's decision, it was found that a claim of deduction, even if inadmissible, does not automatically amount to misreporting unless proven with cogent evidence of deliberate misrepresentation or false particulars.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's health and lack of knowledge. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the addition was substantial and the assessee claimed to have furnished documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification of documents.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for de novo adjudication on merits. The tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice, especially for minor, non-deliberate delays.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's health and lack of knowledge. The Tribunal decided to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits, implying the CIT(A)'s dismissal without considering the merits was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition on an issue not mentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147. The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded were mechanical and suffered from non-application of mind.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal dismissed most of the Revenue's grounds, stating they were covered by earlier decisions in the Assessee's own case. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings regarding JPY receipts and a partial disallowance of delayed PF/ESI deposits.

The Tribunal held that the cash purchases were explained by the assessee's disclosed cash sales. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 56(2)(x) was not justified. The appreciation in land value due to conversion to non-agricultural status was generated by the buyer's investment, not an inadequate consideration from the seller.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the addition under Section 69A was unjustified as the cash deposits were supported by the cash book and regular business receipts. The addition under Section 68 was deleted as the amount represented a reclassification of an opening balance and not a fresh loan. The rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income were also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying the renewal of registration. It relied on a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench concerning the same assessee and similar facts, which had found the assessee's objects to be charitable.

The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing Form No. 10 was subsequently condoned by the CIT(Exemptions), the sole basis for denying the benefit of Section 11(2) no longer survived. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. It directed the Assessees to provide all necessary documents and cooperate with the CIT(E), and also directed the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before adjudicating afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding it to be genuine and not mala fide. It held that denial of exemption under Section 11 solely for late filing of Form 10B, when the form was available before processing, was contrary to established legal principles.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding it to be genuine and not mala fide. It held that denial of exemption under Section 11 solely for late filing of Form 10B, when the form was available before processing, was contrary to established legal principles.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was incorrect as the funds handled were on behalf of the bank, not the assessee's personal income. It also found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with notices due to lack of awareness.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, additions made under Section 69A were deleted as the funds handled were customer deposits and not the assessee's income. Estimated commission income was also deleted as specific details were available.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be denied solely because the assessee accepted Form 10DA after the due date, provided it was uploaded before the due date and accepted before the processing of the return.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. It directed the Assessees to provide all necessary documents and cooperate with the CIT(E), and also directed the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before adjudicating afresh.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. It directed the Assessees to provide all necessary documents and cooperate with the CIT(E), and also directed the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before adjudicating afresh.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was incorrect as the funds handled were on behalf of the bank, not the assessee's personal income. It also found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance with notices due to lack of awareness.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid. However, additions made under Section 69A were deleted as the funds handled were customer deposits and not the assessee's income. Estimated commission income was also deleted as specific details were available.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as fresh information was received after the original assessment. However, regarding the additions for unsecured loans, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in some cases, while in others, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as fresh information was received after the original assessment. However, regarding the additions for unsecured loans, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in some cases, while in others, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as fresh information was received after the original assessment. However, regarding the additions for unsecured loans, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in some cases, while in others, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as fresh information was received after the original assessment. However, regarding the additions for unsecured loans, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in some cases, while in others, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as fresh information was received after the original assessment. However, regarding the additions for unsecured loans, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in some cases, while in others, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as fresh information was received after the original assessment. However, regarding the additions for unsecured loans, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in some cases, while in others, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as fresh information was received after the original assessment. However, regarding the additions for unsecured loans, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication in some cases, while in others, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection orders. It directed the Assessees to provide all necessary documents and cooperate with the CIT(E), and also directed the CIT(E) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before adjudicating afresh.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding no specific evidence linking the assessee to on-money payments. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments stating that third-party documents without corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination cannot form the basis of an addition.