ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for consideration of the application afresh. This decision was based on the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish substantial documents and explanations, and the assessee's counsel prayed for an opportunity to present these to the CIT(E). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and also set aside the order rejecting the application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee demonstrates a willingness to provide pending details and seeks an opportunity, remanding the matter to the lower authority for a fresh consideration, including the submitted explanations, serves the interests of justice. The operative direction is to remand both matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel fairly admitted that some legal issues were raised for the first time before the Tribunal and some issues were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). The Revenue had no objection if these issues were admitted and restored to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the assessee's appeal without dealing with crucial legal grounds, including the validity of the notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d), and the issue of mechanical approval under section 151. The Tribunal found that new legal issues had been raised which went to the root of the matter and did not require fresh investigation, thus admitting them in light of the Apex Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT. Furthermore, the Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT, held that it had no jurisdiction to decide grounds not arising from the impugned order of the first appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of all issues. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was remitted.

The Tribunal found that the nature and source of expenditure claimed for software customization, its accounting treatment, and its eligibility for capitalization as an intangible asset require thorough verification. This includes examining books of account, invoices, agreements, ledger accounts, payment details, and salary records. The issue cannot be decided solely on the difference between book entries and furnished documents. The AO is directed to verify the genuineness of these expenses. Depreciation is a consequential issue. Regarding the computation of assessed income, the Tribunal noted that verification is needed to ascertain if disputed amounts were already disallowed by the assessee and if any duplication occurred. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination. The AO is to provide the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence and explanations, then pass a speaking order. The grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of the assessee's counsel and the material on record. It was observed that the assessee had been granted multiple opportunities by the CIT(A) to furnish details and explanations but failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, considering the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, specifically the serious health issues of the assessee's father, the Tribunal condoned the delay in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant bank statements, supporting documents, and written submissions before the CIT(A) and to comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay primarily because the assessee's explanation was general and lacked documentary evidence for the entire delay period. However, the assessee claimed to be a BC/Banking Mitra, handling banking transactions for customers, with only nominal commission income, and attributed the delay to limited knowledge and financial constraints. The Tribunal also acknowledged the substantial grievance against the addition of ₹1,12,32,361/- under Section 69A and the application of Section 115BBE, which had not been examined on merits due to the dismissal in limine. Considering the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant bank statements, BC/Banking Mitra appointment documents, transaction details, and commission statements. The AO was directed to examine the nature and source of deposits, verify if transactions were on behalf of the bank/customers, and determine taxable income after providing an opportunity of being heard. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made compliance before the AO and submitted a working of LTCG at Rs. 1,72,892/-, which was disclosed in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148. The AO had disallowed certain expenses and disputed the cost of acquisition, leading to a higher LTCG. The Tribunal acknowledged that the grounds taken before the CIT(A) were not adjudicated on merits due to non-compliance. Considering the assessee is a senior citizen, not conversant with online compliances, and attributing the non-compliance to the counsel's fault, the Tribunal deemed it proper to allow another opportunity. The matter was set aside to the file of the CIT(A), who was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and decide the grounds on merits. The assessee was also directed to make compliance during the set-aside proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 11,52,771/- made under Section 69A of the Act were not warranted. Regarding the Rs. 2,00,000/- addition, the assessee had denied any transaction with M/s. Khavda Finance Ltd. and provided a signed confirmation letter from the company stating no financial transaction occurred, a fact not disputed by the Revenue. For the Rs. 11,52,771/- addition, the assessee had furnished detailed explanations along with ledger copies and relevant portions of bank statements for each credit entry, including amounts received from family members, friends, and exempt income. Since these transactions were routed through the bank account and evidence was produced before the revenue authorities, the Tribunal found no basis for the addition. Consequently, the additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground of the assessee inadvertently mentioning the incorrect sub-clause (12A(1)(ac)(iii) instead of 12A(1)(ac)(ii)). The Tribunal observed that there had been significant confusion and misunderstanding regarding the interpretation of Section 12A provisions after the amendments effective from 01.04.2021, leading to the issuance of CBDT circulars and extensions of time for applications. The Tribunal noted that Co-ordinate Benches have consistently held that assessees should not be punished for bona fide mistakes, especially when the entire facts were before the authority and the assessee was otherwise eligible. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) was aware of the assessee's eligibility but felt helpless due to the clerical error. The impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to treat the application as moved under the relevant clause 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and decide it afresh on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,13,928/- as unexplained expenditure was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had denied the transaction and contended that no documentary evidence or statement regarding the alleged transaction was provided. The AO had neither confronted the assessee with the incriminating evidence nor reproduced it in the assessment order. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had disclosed income under the presumptive scheme of section 44AD, which was accepted by the Revenue. When income under section 44AD is accepted, no addition in respect of expenditure can be made. As there was no evidence of unexplained expenditure in the assessment order, the addition was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the case to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issues covered in grounds of appeal no. 1 and 2. The Tribunal directed the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to produce relevant details and clearly explain the entries in the different bank accounts. If the AO is satisfied that the assessee's contention regarding loan repayment and relevant bank entries is correct, the additions under Section 69 and the Rs. 8,78,972/- difference will not survive. Grounds 1 and 2 are allowed for statistical purposes. For Ground of Appeal No. 3, the Tribunal held that GST late fees are statutory payments incurred due to delay in payment and not an expenditure for an offence or prohibited by law. Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) disallows expenses only when the purpose of incurring the expenditure is itself an offence or prohibited by law. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 30,400/- for GST late fees was deleted. The assessee's Ground of Appeal No. 3 is allowed. The overall result is that the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 2,76,264/- made under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on investigation findings concerning the scrip being used for accommodation entries and that the CIT(A) had considered the investigation material and surrounding circumstances, including abnormal price appreciation and the assessee's lack of similar investment activity. The Tribunal referred to various co-ordinate bench decisions which held that the genuineness of share transactions cannot be determined solely by routing through the stock exchange and banking channels, but also requires consideration of surrounding circumstances, financial profile, market behavior, investigation findings, and the assessee's conduct. The assessee failed to provide material to controvert the investigation findings or distinguish her case from precedents. Consequently, the addition was upheld, and the grounds in ITA No. 2369/Ahd/2025 were dismissed. Regarding ITA No. 2370/Ahd/2025, since the quantum addition was upheld, the basis for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) subsisted. Despite the transactions being disclosed, they were found to be non-genuine. Therefore, the penalty was also confirmed, and the grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC of the Act. The reasoning was based on the investigation material, statements recorded under Section 132(4), bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party, Apna Desh Party. The Tribunal noted that these factors constituted a complete chain of circumstances overwhelmingly demonstrating that the donation was merely an accommodation entry. The Tribunal relied on the consistent view taken by coordinate benches in identical matters and cited the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT v. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal v. CIT, emphasizing that taxing authorities can look beyond documentary evidence and examine surrounding circumstances and human probabilities. The ratio decidendi is that mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts cannot override substantial evidence indicating that the recipient political party was involved in providing accommodation entries. Consequently, no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order affirming the Assessing Officer's disallowance. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 2,76,264/- made under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on investigation findings concerning the scrip being used for accommodation entries and that the CIT(A) had considered the investigation material and surrounding circumstances, including abnormal price appreciation and the assessee's lack of similar investment activity. The Tribunal referred to various co-ordinate bench decisions which held that the genuineness of share transactions cannot be determined solely by routing through the stock exchange and banking channels, but also requires consideration of surrounding circumstances, financial profile, market behavior, investigation findings, and the assessee's conduct. The assessee failed to provide material to controvert the investigation findings or distinguish her case from precedents. Consequently, the addition was upheld, and the grounds in ITA No. 2369/Ahd/2025 were dismissed. Regarding ITA No. 2370/Ahd/2025, since the quantum addition was upheld, the basis for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) subsisted. Despite the transactions being disclosed, they were found to be non-genuine. Therefore, the penalty was also confirmed, and the grounds were dismissed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the impugned contribution as a donation eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The Tribunal noted that mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts were insufficient to override the overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the recipient political party, Apna Desh Party, was engaged in providing accommodation entries through a systematic layering of funds. The Tribunal relied on the investigation material, statements recorded under Section 132(4), bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party, which constituted a complete chain of circumstances. The Tribunal also referred to consistent views taken by Coordinate Benches in identical matters. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,73,331/-. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute that the assessee and his son received compensation for agricultural land, and a joint FDR was prepared in their names for enhanced compensation. The Tribunal confirmed that the total interest earned on the joint FDR was Rs. 10,96,489/-, as evidenced by a certificate from Janta Sahkari Bank Ltd. The Tribunal found that 50% of this interest, amounting to Rs. 5,48,245/-, pertained to the assessee and had already been disclosed in his return of income. Additionally, other interest income of Rs. 1,25,088/- was also disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's son, Gopal Radhakishan Brijwasi, had disclosed an amount of Rs. 5,69,281/- in his return of income, which included his share of Rs. 5,48,245/- from the joint FDR. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was unwarranted as the interest income was appropriately disclosed by both joint holders. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 6,73,331/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly applied Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, CBDT Circular No. 03/2010, and various judicial precedents. The reasoning was that transactions in derivatives conducted through a recognized stock broker on a recognized stock exchange, and supported by documents, do not fall within the ambit of 'speculative transactions' as defined under Section 43(5). The CIT(A)'s finding that foreign currency does not fall within the definition of 'commodity' for the purpose of speculative transactions was also affirmed. The CBDT circular further clarified that such derivative transactions are non-speculative if they arise on actual settlement and meet the conditions under Section 43(5)(d). Consequently, the loss of Rs. 3,32,22,796 was held to be a business loss and allowable. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of reopening was not adjudicated on merits and was treated as dismissed, with liberty to the assessee to raise it elsewhere.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for A.Y. 2015-16 was issued on 30.06.2021. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., the Tribunal noted the revenue's concession that for A.Y. 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148A was clearly barred by limitation, rendering the reassessment order void ab initio. As the underlying assessment order was void, the PCIT could not assume jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise it. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order of the PCIT and allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that it was not disputed by the AO that the assets were purchased in FY 2015-16 and not in the year under consideration. The assessee had adequately explained the source of funds as business receipts and realization from debtors, with all payments made through banking channels. The documentary evidence, including bank entries, purchase bills, and sale deeds, were furnished and not disputed by the AO. The AO's only objection was based on certain discrepancies in account maintenance. Furthermore, the assessee had explained the revaluation of assets from Rs. 1,32,09,123/- to Rs. 1,80,05,137/-. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that it was not a case of introduction of capital from unexplained sources. Therefore, no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay primarily because the assessee's explanation was general and lacked documentary evidence for the entire delay period. However, the assessee claimed to be a BC/Banking Mitra, handling banking transactions for customers, with only nominal commission income, and attributed the delay to limited knowledge and financial constraints. The Tribunal also acknowledged the substantial grievance against the addition of ₹1,12,32,361/- under Section 69A and the application of Section 115BBE, which had not been examined on merits due to the dismissal in limine. Considering the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the authorities below and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant bank statements, BC/Banking Mitra appointment documents, transaction details, and commission statements. The AO was directed to examine the nature and source of deposits, verify if transactions were on behalf of the bank/customers, and determine taxable income after providing an opportunity of being heard. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was set aside.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding Ground No. 4 (Rent Expenses): The Tribunal held that the ground has no merit. While the assessee admitted non-deduction of TDS on rent expenses, they failed to produce a certificate from the payee's Chartered Accountant confirming that the rent receipts were accounted for in the payee's income computation. Therefore, the disallowance was upheld against the assessee. Regarding Ground No. 5 (Weight Shortage Expenses): The Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee presented documents from foreign purchasers confirming the weight shortage. The revenue argued these documents were not submitted earlier. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim and provide detailed findings in accordance with the law. Regarding Ground No. 6 (Export Freight): The Tribunal restored this issue to the file of the AO for verification. The assessee contended that the export freight was paid to government agencies, and TDS was not applicable. The revenue did not object to the restoration. The Tribunal clarified that if payments made through an agent were ultimately to government agencies, it would be treated as direct payment to government agencies, and relevant provisions would apply. The AO is to verify whether TDS was liable to be deducted. Grounds 7 & 8 were not pressed. The appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning the addition of Rs. 4,28,000/- for product development services to AEs, relying on a previous decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. For other grounds where parties agreed there was no change in circumstances, the Tribunal's decision in ITA No. 931/Ahd/2025 for AY 2014-15 was to apply mutatis mutandis. The Revenue's appeals in ITA Nos. 2593/AHD/2025 (AY 2017-18) and 2594/AHD/2025 (AY 2018-19) were allowed, following the decision in ITA No. 765/AHD/2025 for AY 2012-13. The Assessee's appeals (ITA Nos. 366/AHD/2020, 765/AHD/2025, 766/AHD/2025, 767/AHD/2025, 768/AHD/2025) were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals (ITA Nos. 931/AHD/2025, 932/AHD/2025, 933/AHD/2025) were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with ITA 932/AHD/2025 being allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the undisputed position is that the assessee disclosed speculative business profit and furnished the speculative profit ledger. The assessee's specific explanation was that Rs. 14,92,993/- in the ledger represented the gross commodity transaction, and Rs. 14,81,826/- was the net amount received after deductions. The AO treated these as separate transactions because the exact net amount was not separately reflected in the ledger. The Tribunal found that before sustaining the addition, the actual nature and correlation of the two amounts required proper verification with reference to contract notes, broker ledger, bank statement, and corresponding book entries. Since the assessee claimed it was connected to commodity trading and furnished the speculative ledger, the matter could not be conclusively decided solely on the difference between gross and net amounts. However, as the assessee did not furnish all requested documents, factual verification was also needed. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing verification of whether the net receipt represented the net proceeds of the gross commodity transaction already accounted for. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the penalty appeal under section 271(1)(c) was also allowed as the basis for the penalty no longer survived, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted.

The Tribunal held that the undisputed position is that the assessee disclosed speculative business profit and furnished the speculative profit ledger. The assessee's specific explanation was that Rs. 14,92,993/- in the ledger represented the gross commodity transaction, and Rs. 14,81,826/- was the net amount received after deductions. The AO treated these as separate transactions because the exact net amount was not separately reflected in the ledger. The Tribunal found that before sustaining the addition, the actual nature and correlation of the two amounts required proper verification with reference to contract notes, broker ledger, bank statement, and corresponding book entries. Since the assessee claimed it was connected to commodity trading and furnished the speculative ledger, the matter could not be conclusively decided solely on the difference between gross and net amounts. However, as the assessee did not furnish all requested documents, factual verification was also needed. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing verification of whether the net receipt represented the net proceeds of the gross commodity transaction already accounted for. The quantum appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Consequently, the penalty appeal under section 271(1)(c) was also allowed as the basis for the penalty no longer survived, with liberty to the AO to initiate fresh proceedings if warranted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,76,250 made under Section 68 of the Act in connection with the assessee's investment in the jointly purchased immovable property was to be deleted. The assessee had explained that the property was jointly purchased by eight co-owners with a loan from Aditya Birla Finance. The amount in question was stated to be paid by her relative, Shri Ashokbhai R. Malvaniya, and a confirmation to this effect was furnished before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had referred to documentary evidence, including the purchase deed, loan sanction letter, bank statement, and confirmation of the alleged payer. The genuineness of the payment could not be doubted merely in the absence of further evidence, especially considering the smallness of the amount, which was even below the taxable income threshold. The identity and creditworthiness of the payer could not be reasonably questioned solely on this basis. The evidentiary value of the confirmation and its correlation with the actual payment was not doubted. Regarding Ground No. 2, challenging the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Tribunal held that it had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not referring the disputed stamp duty value of the property to the DVO for determining the fair market value, as required by Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that in the case of a co-owner, the DVO had determined the fair market value at Rs. 40,00,000/-. Considering the objection to the stamp duty value was not examined through a DVO reference, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the DVO's report in the co-owner's case, verify its authenticity and applicability, and determine the fair market value. The AO was also permitted to refer the matter to the DVO afresh if required. The issue regarding agricultural income was also to be examined afresh after considering the evidences produced by the assessee. The grounds taken by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disputed the stamp duty value of the property before the AO, but the AO failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer (VO) as required by Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act when the stamp duty value is disputed. The Tribunal observed that fresh evidence in the form of a VO's report in the case of the co-owner, Shri Ramanlal Mori, for the same property was placed on record. This report determined the fair market value at Rs. 37,65,306/-, as against the stamp duty value of Rs. 1,12,95,918/- adopted by the AO. The Tribunal considered this report as relevant material requiring examination for determining the property's value under Section 56(2)(vii). Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine the VO's report in the co-owner's case, verify its authenticity and applicability, and determine the fair market value accordingly. The AO was also instructed to verify the additional evidence and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable. The primary reasoning was that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective. The notice stated that the assessee had "concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" without striking off the inapplicable limb. This vagueness deprived the assessee of a clear understanding of the charge to be answered, hindering an effective response. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Unitech Reliable Projects (P) Ltd., which support the requirement of specifying the charge in the penalty notice. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the income assessed in the reassessment proceedings was the same as the income declared by the assessee, and no additions or disallowances were made by the AO. The penalty proceedings were initiated solely due to the delay in filing the return, which, in the absence of material establishing concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not justify the imposition of penalty. The Revenue did not provide any material to establish otherwise. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 14,76,538/- was deleted. Other contentions raised by the assessee were left undecided as academic.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 dated 31st July 2022 was not issued within the ‘survival period’, as conceded by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the AO's report, in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal and Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, and the Gujarat High Court's order in Dhanraj Govindram Kella, indicated that the notice was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 based on this time-barred notice were considered void-ab-initio and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal found no need to address the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee due to this finding. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.24,00,000/- was not sustainable. The primary basis for the addition was an alleged entry in the builder's computer, which was not corroborated by any independent or tangible evidence. The assessee had consistently disputed making such a cash payment and pointed out the absence of corresponding cash withdrawals. The Tribunal noted that the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee, including the purchase agreement, purchase deed, ledger account, bank statements, and home-loan sanction letter, was relevant but had not been properly examined or reconciled by the AO or CIT(A) with the alleged cash payment. The CIT(A)'s confirmation of the addition on the ground of the assessee failing to establish the source was flawed, as the very factum of the payment was disputed. The Tribunal emphasized that before requiring the assessee to explain the source, the Revenue should have established the payment with cogent and corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the assessee's specific request for cross-examination of the source of third-party material was not effectively provided, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the addition could not be sustained on an uncorroborated entry when the payment itself was disputed and the Revenue lacked independent evidence. The burden cannot be shifted to the assessee to explain a payment not established to have been made. Consequently, the addition of Rs.24,00,000/- was deleted. The grounds relating to reopening under section 148 and procedural aspects were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148A was bad in law. The AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry as mandated by Section 148A(a) and (b), which requires verifying information suggesting escapement of income and sharing it with the assessee. The information that the assessee traded in Kushal Ltd. scrip was insufficient to conclude income had escaped assessment, especially since the original assessment under Section 143(3) had already considered business profits from this trading. The assessee had disclosed business profits of Rs. 52,63,897/- from these transactions, paid applicable taxes, and did not claim tax-exempt long-term capital gains. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee suffered significant losses in the subsequent year from the same scrip, and these losses were not easily set off, negating any motive for booking bogus gains. The AO's reason for reopening, that the assessee had not shown income/loss, was factually incorrect. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on merits was also not sustainable. The cross objections of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148A was bad in law. The AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry as mandated by Section 148A(a) and (b), which requires verifying information suggesting escapement of income and sharing it with the assessee. The information that the assessee traded in Kushal Ltd. scrip was insufficient to conclude income had escaped assessment, especially since the original assessment under Section 143(3) had already considered business profits from this trading. The assessee had disclosed business profits of Rs. 52,63,897/- from these transactions, paid applicable taxes, and did not claim tax-exempt long-term capital gains. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee suffered significant losses in the subsequent year from the same scrip, and these losses were not easily set off, negating any motive for booking bogus gains. The AO's reason for reopening, that the assessee had not shown income/loss, was factually incorrect. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on merits was also not sustainable. The cross objections of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the issue required a factual examination at the AO's level. The assessee was directed to furnish a statement of account from the bank clearly indicating the amount actually deposited during the year and identifying duplicate entries resulting from auto-sweep or reverse entries. The AO was instructed to examine these entries. If the assessee could reconcile the entries, no addition would be made on this issue. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment on this specific issue. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition but remanded the case for further factual verification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the partnership firm was dissolved on 01.04.2016 and the business was continued by Shri Anand I. Shah as a sole proprietor. Shri Anand I. Shah had filed his personal income tax return for AY 2017-18 under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD, declaring a business income of Rs. 5,08,958/- on a total turnover of Rs. 63,61,975/-. The Tribunal found that the amount in dispute (Rs. 28,66,040) was already subsumed in the total turnover declared by the proprietor. The Tribunal observed that it is immaterial whether the said amount is assessed in the hands of the proprietor or the firm, as long as the same amount is offered to tax. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was considered to be an illegal and invalid double taxation. The Tribunal did not specifically address grounds related to the ex-parte order, invocation of Section 69A, peak balance theory, breach of natural justice, interest under Sections 234A/B/C/D, and penalty proceedings under Sections 271AAC, 272A(1)(d), and 271F, as the primary issue of double taxation was resolved in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution does not absolve the appellate authority of its duty to adjudicate grounds on merits, especially when the CIT(A) had considered the issues. Regarding the addition of Rs. 5,19,500/- under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that the AO had aggregated different types of bank credits and cash deposits without conducting independent inquiries into the nature of individual entries or establishing that the entire amount represented unexplained money. Specifically, three non-cash credits from identified persons were not examined individually. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made primarily due to the assessee's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation, without sufficient independent material to prove the assessee was the owner of unexplained money. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,19,500/- under Section 69A was deleted. The issue of deduction under Section 80GGC was not adjudicated as the assessee had withdrawn the claim and paid consequential taxes. Grounds challenging the reopening validity and approval under Section 151 were not specifically decided due to lack of complete statutory records, but the appeal was allowed on the substantive addition. The AO was directed to grant credit for TDS and self-assessment tax after verification. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the substantive addition.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's challenge to the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on grounds of limitation, non-service of notice under Section 148A(b), and failure to meet the monetary threshold under Section 149(1)(b). The Tribunal noted that these issues required examination at the Assessing Officer's level based on the revenue's records. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that jurisdictional and validity issues concerning reassessment proceedings, including the validity of notices under Section 148 and 148A, should be examined by the Assessing Officer if they require factual verification from the revenue's records. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel stated that all grounds except Ground No. 3 were not pressed. Consequently, all other grounds were dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 3, which pertains to the addition of Rs. 43,18,944/- on account of lower profits shown in the revised return, the assessee contended that certain billed amounts to M/s Offshore Infrastructures Ltd. and M/s Toyo Engineering India Ltd. were not recoverable and were settled at lower values. The assessee sought to produce additional evidence to substantiate this claim. The Tribunal, finding that the documents sought to be relied upon had a bearing on the actual determination of income, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of confirming the addition of Rs. 43,18,944/-. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to admit the additional evidence, provide the assessee with an opportunity for further submissions, and then pass a fresh assessment order on this limited issue. Other additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were upheld. The appeal was treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was passed mechanically without application of mind. The Ld. CIT(A) had correctly noted that the assessee had duly accounted for the Rs. 30 Crores received from United Eduplus Pvt. Ltd. and declared it as income in its return, claiming the permissible 15% accumulation after applying 85% of the income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sold only the building and furniture, while the land belonged to the buyer. It was also noted that the value of land increases over time, while the superstructure depreciates. The assessee explained the sale was at actual cost, not WDV, and the AO did not establish a lower FMV or a lesser sale price. The AO's addition of the entire receipt was incorrect, as Section 13(1)(c)(ii) pertains to disallowing deductions on application of income, not adding the entire receipt. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the impugned rejection order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance with a single notice. The Tribunal was of the view that in the prevailing facts and circumstances, the interest of justice would be served by granting another opportunity to the assessee to make out a case for renewal of registration. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned rejection order passed by the CIT(E) with specific directions. These directions included the assessee placing on record correct postal and email addresses, updating them on the ITBA Portal, furnishing all supporting documents and responding to queries without unnecessary adjournments. The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate the application afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee failed to comply with these directions, the CIT(E) would be at liberty to adjudicate the application based on the material on record and as per law. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes without returning any findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred, provided the delay is not deliberate or due to gross negligence. The assessee's explanation that the cash deposits related to the regular business activities of the partnership firm, M/s Sai Petroleum, and that a separate assessment was framed for the firm, was considered plausible. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided the firm's financial statements, a certificate from the State Bank of India, and the firm's return acknowledgement. Therefore, the Tribunal found sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. The delay of approximately 600 days was condoned, the NFAC's order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits. The AO was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed. Regarding Ground No. 3, which pertains to the merits of the addition under Section 69A and Section 115BBE, the Tribunal held that since the delay was condoned and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication, this ground did not require adjudication at that stage. The AO was directed to consider all contentions raised by the assessee on merits. Thus, Ground No. 3 was also restored to the AO for de novo adjudication for statistical purposes. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The assessee's case was that the application was intended to be made under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) but was inadvertently filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) due to an incorrect option selection during the electronic filing. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not confronted with this defect and thus could not explain the inadvertent mistake to the CIT(E). A single notice of hearing was issued. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the assessee to make out a case for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the application was restored. The CIT(E) was directed to either treat the application as filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) or grant the assessee an opportunity to file a rectified application. The CIT(E) was also permitted to decide the application on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to make submissions and file supporting documents. All rights and contentions of the assessee were left open. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of a three-day delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to furnish relevant documentary evidence and cooperate in the proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that where an appeal is dismissed solely on technical grounds of delay without examining the merits, and a reasonable explanation for the delay is provided, the appellate authority should consider the appeal de novo in the interest of substantial justice. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.