BharatTax.net

WP/6651/2026 · 7/4/2026

ITA/185/2025 · 5/3/2026

ITA/637/2016 · 5/2/2026

ITA/177/2025 · 18/3/2026

ITA/6/2025 · 5/2/2026

ITA 4125/CHNY/2025 · 18/3/2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear before the AO and CIT(A), despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

ITA 4133/CHNY/2025 · 17/3/2026

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) set aside the AO's assessment order and remitted the case back to the AO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was based on available information and partial submissions, estimating income and rejecting books of accounts. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

ITA 4136/CHNY/2025 · 18/3/2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

ITA 3793/CHNY/2025 · 17/3/2026

The Tribunal noted that there was a delay in filing the appeals. However, the assessee explained that they were unaware of the CIT(A)'s orders. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Finding that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to non-participation, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.

ITA 3794/CHNY/2025 · 17/3/2026

The Tribunal noted that there was a delay in filing the appeals, which was condoned due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The assessee claimed ignorance of the CIT(A)'s notices due to not checking the income tax portal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided opportunities for hearing but the assessee did not respond.

ITA 132/VNS/2024 · 5/1/2026

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by not allowing the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, as required by Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal found that merely being a non-profit organization and making payments through banking channels was insufficient to establish the genuineness of the expenses without proper verification. Consequently, both the quantum appeal and the consequential penalty appeal were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

ITA 110/VNS/2024 · 5/1/2026

The ITAT found that the disallowance was made on an ad hoc basis without justification or specific findings regarding bogus creditors. It directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

ITA 4/VNS/2024 · 5/1/2026

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity and the CIT(A) relied on a remand report without sharing it with the assessee, violating natural justice. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

ITA 135/VNS/2020 · 5/1/2026

The Third Member was appointed to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. The Judicial Member relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs ABC Papers Ltd., asserting that the territorial jurisdiction of appellate authorities, including the ITAT, is determined by the location of the AO who passed the assessment order. Therefore, the appeal against an order passed by an AO in Kolkata should be heard by the Kolkata Bench of the ITAT.

ITA 108/VNS/2024 · 5/1/2026

The tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing a fresh assessment order.

ITA 2988/KOL/2025 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to issues with communication and the old email ID. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits.

ITA 1696/KOL/2025 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay and condoned it. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

ITA 3022/KOL/2025 · 15/4/2026

ITA 2340/KOL/2025 · 15/4/2026

ITA 2989/KOL/2025 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay due to not receiving communications from an erstwhile tax consultant. The CIT(A)'s rejection of the condonation was set aside.