AI Insights
The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad against M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The primary issues revolved around the deletion of additions made under Section 68 and Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act by the CIT(A). The Department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by admitting fresh evidences and failing to appreciate the cessation of liabilities. The Tribunal examined the merits of the CIT(A)'s decision, the evidences presented, and the legal interpretations applied.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131364 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-04-2023
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
12-03-2023
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
17-12-2017
Judgement Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Th e ITO, Ward-2(1 )(1), A’bad (Appellant) Vs M/s. Green city Heritage Pvt. Ltd. , C-21, Sursagar Tower, Opp . Sattad har Society, Ghatlodia, Ah med abad-3800 61 PAN: AAD CG2829 H (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri D. K. Parikh, A. R. Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey , S r. D. R. Date of hearing : 13-03 -2023 Date of pronouncement : 26-04 -2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad in Appeal no. CIT(A)-2/44/ITO, Wd. 2(1)(1)2016-17, in proceeding u/s. 250 vide order dated 29/09/2017 passed for the assessment year 2013-14. ITA No. 2855/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2013-14 I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 2 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs 6,00,000 u/s 68 of IT Act. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in admitting fresh evidences in contravention to the clauses in Rule 46A. 1.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongfully concluded that sufficient opportunities were not given to the asseesee by stating that the show cause notice was issued only on 3.03,2016 when the fact of the matter is that the assessee had been asked much earlier by the AO to prove the genuineness of such advance received and it was the final show cause notice that was issued on 3.03.2011. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has also failed to appreciate that even otherwise such deposit was liable to be treated as the income of the assessee u/s 28 as the said deposit was virtually assessee's income as there is absolutely no movement or correspondence between the assessee and the depositor with respect to the deposit amount. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the H'ble Gujarat. High court in the case of Gujtron Electronics (p) Ltd. vs. ITO (83 Taxmann.corn 389). 2. The Ld C1T(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,18,661/- 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that since no confirmations could be filed from these 2 parties, there was a clear case of cessation of liability in term of section 41(1) or income in term of section 28 there was absolutely no movement or correspondence between the assessee and these creditor with respect to these amount. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the H'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Gujtron Electronics (p) Ltd. vs. ITO (83 Taxmann.com 389) wherein it was held that appropriation of such amount to the profit and loss account was not essential for the taxability. I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 3 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.9,74,925/-. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that since no confirmations could be filed from these 2 parties, there was a clear case of cessation of liability in term of section 41(1) or income in term of section 28 of the Act as there was absolutely no movement or correspondence between the assessee and these creditor with respect to these amounts. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the H'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Gujtron Electronics (p) Ltd. vs. ITO (83 Taxmann.com 389) wherein it was held that appropriation of such amount to the profit and loss account was not essential for the taxability. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition the addition of Rs. 2,63,809/- (sanjay Enterprise), 25,09,659/- (Billtech Foundation) and Rs. 2,59,310/- (Jai Hind Traders). 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that since no confirmations could be filed from these 2 parties, there was a clear case of cessation of liability in term of section 41(1) or income in term of section 28 of the Act as there was absolutely no movement or correspondence between the assessee and these creditor with respect to these amounts. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the H'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Gujtron Electronics (p) Ltd. vs. ITO (83 Taxmann.com 389) wherein it was held that appropriation of such amount to the profit and loss account was not essential for the taxability. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition made in the case of Labh home Males Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in not appreciating that the assessee has failed to file any evidence regarding the creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors during the year in this account in terms of section 68 of the IT Act. I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 4 6. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” Ground No. 1 of Department’s Appeal : The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,68,000/- of the Act. 3. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. During the year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in construction business and has declared total receipts of Rs. 41,23,525/- against which it claimed expenses of Rs. 41,23,525/- and has declared nil profit. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that on perusal of the details of booking advances appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee are that the assessee had received booking advances of Rs. 6 lakhs from TIJI Rose Thomas towards booking of flat no. B-204. However, the assessee failed to furnish any confirmation from such customer and even failed to furnish any address of the customer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the booking advances of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained cash credits and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with following observations:- “3.6. On the merit, Assessing Officer has perused the sales agreement with Tiji Rose Thomas and reported that Tiji Rose Thomas has made payment of booking advance towards purchase of Flat No. B-204 in 2009 and is duly reflected in the bank statement of appellant company. In view of the above fact, the addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act is not justified and same is deleted. The ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 5 4. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order giving relief to the assessee. Before us, the counsel for the assessee has reproduced copy of agreement of sale of the aforesaid property in support of the fact that the sale of the above flat was duly supported by a signed agreement. Further, the assessee has also produced copy of bank statement to show that the advance of Rs. 6 lakhs has been duly reflected in the balance statement of the assessee company. The counsel for the assessee submitted that it was in the light of above facts that the ld. CIT(A) held that since the assessee has been able to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the transaction, and therefore, no addition is called for u/s. 68 of the Act. Looking into the instant facts, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. In the result, the ground no. 1 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 2 ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,18,661/- 5. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the balance sheet of the assessee revealed trade paybles/creditors of Rs. 3,40,15,868/-. Notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act were issued to two creditors (i) Arora Sign Solutions ( Rs. 7,27,792/-) (ii) Fertile LSLE (Rs. 2,90,868/-). However, both the creditors merely conveyed that the they did not have any transaction with the assessee during the financial year under consideration. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the aforesaid creditors did not furnish any ledger account confirmation to confirm the outstanding balance shown by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the outstanding I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 6 balances amounting to Rs. 10,18,861/- are treated as ceased liability and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 6. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee with respect to this ground of appeal. The ld. CIT(A) held that Assessing Officer was not justified to consider this as a case of cessation of liability without looking into the past record and future payments with respect to this party. The ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the records available, there is no dispute that the assessee had made payments to the aforesaid parties in the previous assessment years. Accordingly, in view of the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Nitin S. Garg 200 taxman 16 (Gujarat High Court), the ld. CIT(A) allowed this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. While allowing this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:- “4.9. As regards to addition made in respect of Arora Sign Solutions of Rs.7,27,792/- and Fertile isle of Rs.2,90,869/-u/s. 41(1) of the I, T. Act, 1961 in Para 5.2.2 of the assessment order, the creditors have conveyed that they did not have any transaction with the appellant during the financial year under consideration in response to notice u/s. 133(6) of the I. T. Act, 1961. It is apparent from the ledger account, that there was no transaction during the year and they had confirmed this fact. Assessing Officer was not justified to consider this as a case of cessation of liability without looking to the past record and future payment. It is evident that in the case of Arora Sign Solution, the expenditure were incurred for advertisement contract and Rs.21,03,697/- was paid in A. Y. 2009-10 by Arora Sign Solution and further expenses of Rs. 11,3387-was incurred in A. Y. 2010-11. In the case of Fertile Isle amount of Rs.43,03,150/- was paid in A. Y. 2009-10 for advertisement contract and a further sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was paid in A. Y. 2010-11. I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 7 4.10. In view of the above facts, the AO was not justified to hold that the liability to pay the creditor has ceased while making addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin S. Garg [208 Taxmann. 16] (Gujarat).” 7. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) with respect to the aforesaid additions. In the case of CIT vs. Bhogilal 43 taxman.com 55 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where the assessee in return of income for assessment year 2007-08 had shown certain amount by way of his debts and Assessing Officer by applying the provisions of section 41(1) added back the said amount to income of the assessee as deemed income, since there is nothing on record to suggest that there is remission or cession of liability and that too during assessment year 2007-08, the above amount could not be added back to the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Nitin S. Garg 22 taxman.com 56 (Gujarat High Court), the Gujarat High Court held that merely because creditors were many years old and no interest had been paid on loans, no addition can be made u/s. 41(1), specially in the light of the fact that assessee had continued to show admitted amount as liability in its balance sheet and thus it could not be treated as a case of cession of liabilities in the case of ITO vs. Bhavesh Prints Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1302/Ahd/2010, the ITAT Ahmedabad held that once the liabilities are outstanding, even though the credits have become time barred by limitation, the same cannot be assessed by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. In the light of the above decisions, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT(A) has not erred in deleting the aforesaid additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 41(1) of the Act. In the present case, the expenditure was I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 8 incurred towards advertisement contract in respect of which expenditure was incurred in the past years. The assessee has shown the aforesaid two parties i.e. Arora Sign Solutions and Fertile LSLE as its creditors in the books of accounts. There is nothing on record to show that liability towards aforesaid parties had seized during the year under consideration so as to invoke section 41(1) of the Act. There is no allegation by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the parties are not genuine or that the assessee was not having any prior transactions with the aforesaid parties. Therefore, there is no concrete basis for the Ld. A.O. to conclude that liability had ceased with respect to the aforesaid two parties so as to invoke the provision of section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions in the light of the aforesaid facts. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the Department appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 3 Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,74,925/- 8. The brief fact in relation to this ground of appeal are that during the course of assessment , the ld. Assessing Officer made additions u/s. 41(1) of the Act in respect of three parties namely; Jijoe Joy ( Rs. 1,11,555/-), Shri Navkishore Trivedi (Rs. 7,44,538/-) and Shradha Trades (Rs. 1,18,832/-) totaling to Rs. 9,74,925/- on the ground that the assessee did not furnish ledger account confirmations from the aforesaid creditors. 9. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 9 “4.11. As regard to addition in respect of Shri Jijoe Joy of Rs. 1,11,555/-, Shri Navkishore Trivedi of Rs.7,44,538/- and Shraddha Trader of Rs. 1,18,832/- u/s. 41 (1) of the Act in Para 5.2.3 in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has made the addition on the ground that they did not furnish ledger account confirmation in response to show cause notice dated 03/03/2016. The assessing officer has made the disallowances without looking the nature of liability and the past record. The appellant has purchased goods from Shri Jijeo Joy of Rs.18,79,350/- in A. Y. 2012-13 and has made payment of Rs.24,32,790/-. There were regular accounts running from A. Y. 2010- 11 onwards. As regard to Shraddha Trader, there was purchase of goods of Rs.4,33,832/- and payment of Rs. 3, 15,0007- was made in A. Y. 201 1-12. The liability arose in A. Y. 2010-1 1 and continued in A. Y. 2011-12. 4.12. Having considered all the above facts and decision of Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin S. Garg [208 Taxmann. 16] (Gujarat) and CIT Vs. Bogilal Ramjibhai Attara 222 Taxman 313 (Gujarat) the Assessing Officer was not justified to make addition u/s. 41(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 in all the above cases.” 10. The Department is in appeal before us against the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) with respect to two parties namely Shri Jijoe Joy & Naval Kishore Trivedi. We observe that there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) who on appreciation of facts held that the Department has not been able to establish that the liability towards the aforesaid creditors had ceased during the impugned assessment year. Further, in our view, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the Assessing Officer has made the disallowances without looking into the nature of liability and the past records of the assessee with the aforesaid two parties. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Further, the assessee’s case is also supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 10 Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin S. Gard 208 taxman 16 (Gujarat High Court) and CIT vs. Boginal 222 taxman 313 (Gujarat High Court). 11. Accordingly, ground no. 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4 ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,63,809/- ( Sanjay Enterprise) Rs. 25,09,659/ ( Build Tech Foundation and Rs. 2,59,310/- ( Jaihind Traders) 12. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee had shown trade payables/creditors with respect to the aforesaid three parties. The Assessing Officer issued notices to the aforesaid three parties u/s. 133(6) of the Act calling for the ledger account confirmations. However, no receipt was received from the aforesaid three creditors. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the trade liability towards these aforesaid three creditors had seized and added the above amounts to the total income of the assessee u/s. 41(1) of the Act. 13. In appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions with respect to the aforesaid parties by observing that the past record of the assessee with the aforesaid parties shows the assessee was having regular transactions with the aforesaid three parties since the past several years. Therefore, as there was a regular transaction with the above parties, merely because notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act remained un-complied, additions cannot be made u/s. 41(1) of the Act. While passing the order, the ld. CIT(A) made the following observations:- I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 11 “4.7. As regards to trading liability of M/s. Sanjay Enterprises of Rs.2,63,809/-, Billtech Foundation of Rs. 25,09,659/- and Jaihind Traders of Rs.2,59,310/- the addition has been made merely because the creditor has not replied to the notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. The past record show regular transaction with the above parties as under:- Name of the Party Nat ure of Tra nsa ctio n A.Y 2009-10 A.Y 2010-11 A.Y 2011-12 A.Y 2012-13 Expens es Incurre d Amoun t Paid Expens es Incurre d Amoun t Paid Expens es Incurr ed Amoun t Paid Expe nses Incur red Amo unt Paid Sanjo Enterpri se Lab our Cha rges 884136 605700 500000 32577 5 - 20000 0 - 1500 00 Buildtec h Foundati on Lab our Con trac tor 1 139415 3 863453 4 75000 0 - - - - Jay Hind Traders Pur cha se of goo ds 996136 7 996136 7 216577 8 15198 38 27965 25 34424 65 1859 310 1 6000 00 I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 12 4.8. As there is a regular transaction with the above parties, merely because notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act remained un-complied addition cannot be made u/s. 41 (1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of Honourable Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin S. Garg [208 Taxmann. 16] (Gujarat).” 14. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid three creditors. On going through the facts of the case and the observations made by ld. CIT(A) in his order, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT(A) has not erred in facts and in law in deleting the aforesaid additions. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the case of the assessee is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nitin S. Garg 208 taxman 11 (Gujarat High Court). In the instant facts, the Assessing Officer has not been able to bring anything on record to establish that the liability towards aforesaid three creditors had seized during the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. 15. In the result, ground no. 4 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 5 Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition in the case of Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,65,68,595/- 16. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer made an addition with respect to M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 2,65,68,595/- u/s. 41(1) of the Act on the ground that liability towards such trade creditor had seized during the impugned I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 13 assessment year. The assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid addition. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that this amount of Rs. 2,65,68,595/- in respect of Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. is not a trading liability but a loan transaction with opening balance of Rs. 2,46,35,095/-. The assessee submitted that there was receipt and payment transaction in this account every year. The assessee submitted confirmation of the party, copy of income tax return, and annual report of the company, M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd.. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Assessing Officer, after issuing notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act has admitted that the aforesaid amount is not in the nature of regular purchase/sale account but is of the nature of loan accounts and the same were wrongly reflected as creditor by the assessee company. The ld. CIT(A) in the light of the above facts deleted the aforesaid addition with the following observations:- “4.5. I have considered remand report and document submitted by appellant. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has noted that assessee has claimed deduction for expenditure in preceding years and the balance have remained unpaid and there is no evidence that the liability to pay the creditor still subsists. The finding of Assessing Officer in respect of M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 2,65,68,595/- is incorrect as admitted by AO during remand proceedings. The AO has not looked into the ledger accounts or the past record of the appellant. There is a regular transaction of loan from M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. and even during the current year there is an amount of Rs.51,28,500/- received and Rs.31,95,000/- repaid. The Assessing Officer's argument that genuineness has not been proved is not correct as there is a opening balance of Rs.2,46,45,055/- and no addition of opening balance can be made on the basis of genuineness. The appellant has submitted I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 14 loan confirmation, bank statement of M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. which is a group concern of the appellant company. 4.6. As the amount of Rs.2,65,68,595/- was a loan and was never claimed as deduction for expenditure, no addition can be made u/s. 41 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for cessation of liability.” 17. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) with respect to this addition. On going through the assessment records and observations made by the ld. CIT(A), we observe that ld. CIT(A) correctly observed that the finding of the Assessing Officer with respect to M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 2,65,68,595/- is incorrect and the same has also been admitted by the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that there is a regular transaction of loan from M/s. Labh Home Pvt. Ltd. and even during the current year, there is an amount of Rs. 51.25 lakhs which was received and an amount of Rs. 31.95 lakhs was repaid. It is a well settled proposition that no addition of opening balances can be made on the basis of genuineness and in the instant facts, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that there is a opening balance of Rs. 2,46,45,055/-. Therefore, looking into the instant facts, we find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. Before us, the counsel for the assessee has produced the copies of the confirmation account and ledger account of M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd, the bank statement of M/s. Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. reflecting transactions with assessee and also the income tax return and balance sheet of Labh Home Makers Pvt. Ltd. Further, we observe that the ld. Departmental Representative has not placed anything on record to controvert finding made by ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. I.T.A No. 2855/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. ITO vs. M/s. Greencity Heritage Pvt. Ltd. 15 Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, ground no. 5 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. 18. In the result, ground no. 5 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. 19. In the combined result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26-04-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 26/04/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद
Other Referred Cases
Gujtron Electronics (P) Ltd. vs. ITO, CIT vs. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Attara, CIT vs. Nitin S. Garg, ITO vs. Bhavesh Prints Pvt. Ltd.
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Master The Pitch-Deck Game
₹0
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
Shipping and Logistics Agreement
₹0
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026