ITAT Surat Judgments — March 2026

CHINTANBHAI LAVJIBHAI DANKHARA,SURAT vs ITO, SURAT

ITA 769/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 324 days, citing the assessee's sufficient cause, including a non-cooperative consultant, a recent family bereavement, and the disproportionate nature of the addition compared to the returned income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing.

BABUBHAI GANGABHAI BAGUL,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-1, NAVSARI

ITA 1352/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Mar 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty matter was also restored back to the AO to be decided afresh along with the quantum proceedings.

DEEPAK SURESH SHANDILYA,HARYANA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , GUJARAT

ITA 1124/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Mar 2026AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the Assessee's prayer for withdrawal.

DARSHINI AMIT SHARMA,DAMAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAMAN, DAMAN

ITA 1345/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which enhanced the limit from 5% to 10% for the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value of immovable property not to be considered as income, has been consistently held to be a curative amendment and therefore retrospective in nature by several ITAT decisions, including the one cited by the assessee in Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. ITO. The Tribunal noted that no contrary decision from a higher judicial authority was brought to its notice. Since the facts on record clearly showed that the difference between the actual consideration paid and the stamp duty value was less than 10% of the actual consideration, the addition made by the AO under Section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,10,600. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel that there was no case for making any addition. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it agreed with the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no case for making any addition to the income of the assessee in terms of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The addition made in the hands of the assessee was held to be not sustainable in law, and deletion of the addition was directed.

BHANUSHANKAR KASALSHIBHAI DAVE,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-3(2)(6), SURAT

ITA 1331/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

DEEPAK SURESH SHANDILYA,HARYANA vs ITO WARD-2, VAPI, GUJARAT

ITA 1125/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed19 Mar 2026AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the Assessee's prayer for withdrawal.

MEGA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH

ITA 988/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest on loans was not justifiable as the loans were given out of interest-free funds. The disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS was also not justified as the expenses were part of the assessee's business. The addition for cash expenses was also held to be not justified.

ASGARALI MAZHARALI MANIHAR,ANKLESHWAR vs ITO, WARD 2(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH

ITA 1323/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the sale deed was cancelled by a registered cancellation deed, the transaction of purchase did not take place. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act were not applicable.

ASHOKKUMAR PRABHULAL MEHTA,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 1303/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's counsel's submission regarding an oversight that led to the ex-parte dismissal. To ensure justice, the Tribunal imposed a cost on the assessee and directed the AO to provide another opportunity for hearing.

DILIP KUMAR CHOPRA,SURAT vs ITO, WARD 2(3) (1), SURAT

ITA 865/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The ITAT partly allowed the appeal, upholding an addition of Rs. 14,02,500/- for unexplained cash deposits while granting relief for Rs. 10,00,000/-. It also ruled that the amended Section 115BBE, effective from 15.12.2016, could not be applied to cash deposits made prior to that date.

BINABEN JAYESHBHAI GOR,VALSAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1, VAPI, VAPI

ITA 1456/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal, noting repeated non-compliance, imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the assessee. Subject to this payment, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to provide another opportunity for the assessee to furnish evidence for the cash deposits.

DHANESH JIVABHAI VAISHYA,DAMAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMAN WARD, DAMAN WARD

ITA 864/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal held that for AY 2024-25, there was no express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A denying rebate on tax payable on short-term capital gains under the new tax regime. The proposed amendment in the Finance Bill 2025, being prospective, reinforced this interpretation for the relevant year.

SHREYANS ANILKUMAR SHAH,NA vs ARIVS.CIT(A), WARD 5, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

ITA 786/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the basis of the impugned addition was not sustained as the Tribunal itself had accepted that the deposits were collections from customers in the course of the assessee's profession as a freelancer/agent for financial schemes. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had offered commission income, albeit at a lesser rate. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

VAIBHAV CORPORATION,SURAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 775/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the notices of hearing were indeed sent to an incorrect email address, due to which the assessee could not represent its case before the CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

RAJENDRAKUMAR ICHUBHAI KOTHARI,BHARUCH vs ITO, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

ITA 836/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities failed to consider the evidence regarding co-ownership of the land and the assessee's share. It also noted the provision for a 50% deduction under section 57(iv) on such interest income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

CHINTAN VRAJLAL MANGUKIYA,SURAT vs ASSESSMENT UNIT ITO JURISDICTIONAL A O WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 859/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a cash book and prior year's closing cash balance, to explain the cash payment for the car purchase. The AO's addition was made mechanically without properly considering the evidence.

SIDDHESHWAR GEMS,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 860/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without proper verification and application of mind. The assessee had actually made sales, and the profit thereon was already offered for taxation. Therefore, the additions were not legally sustainable.

NIKUNJ BIPINBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs ITO WARD - 3 (2) (1), SURAT

ITA 759/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's appeal for the said assessment year was already allowed in the physical appeal proceedings, the subsequent dismissal of the online appeal by the CIT(A) was not sustainable in law. The impugned order was quashed.

RAJENDRAKUMAR ICHUBHAI KOTHARI,BHARUCH vs ITO, WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

ITA 835/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed9 Mar 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities failed to consider the evidence regarding co-ownership of the land and the assessee's share. It also noted the provision for a 50% deduction under section 57(iv) on such interest income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

PLEZER DIGITAL PRESS,SURAT vs ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

ITA 1155/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed3 Mar 2026AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional documents to the Tribunal and, in the interest of justice, imposed a cost on the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the unsecured loan by providing the assessee with another opportunity of hearing.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VAPI, VAPI vs KAUSHIK RAMLAL PATEL, GIDC VAPI

ITA 843/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed2 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence, including bank statements and ledger details, which substantiated the assessee's claim of acting as an intermediary for Vodafone M-Pesa. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the inflow and outflow patterns in the bank accounts explained the credits.