Loading High Court cases…
1,200 orders from the Calcutta High Court.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The High Court held that there were no substantial questions of law involved in the appeal. The Court found that the Appellate Tribunal had correctly upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal had noted that the Assessee had filed all necessary details before the AO and CIT(A), including recipient details, commission paid, contractual payments, addresses, PAN numbers, balance sheets, confirmations of ITRs, and bank statements, proving these were regular payments. The Tribunal also correctly noted that the AO had failed to bring on record any material to prove the payments were bogus or unreasonable, and that recipients had duly shown these payments in their returns. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the goods purchased were supplied to a semi-government department, and since these sales were not doubted and the Assessee's books of accounts were not rejected by the AO, no disallowance for bogus purchases could arise. The Court relied on its own decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–18, Kolkata Versus Pravesh Kumar Jaiswal, stating that if purchases are bogus, corresponding sales must also be bogus, and conversely, if sales are not doubted and books are not rejected, purchases cannot be held as bogus. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings were not infirm, illegal, or perverse. The appeal was dismissed as it involved questions of fact dealt with correctly by the Tribunal.
The High Court found no substantial questions of law could be formulated. It noted that the NCLT order under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code extinguished statutory dues, including income tax.
The High Court found that no substantial questions of law could be formulated in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was dismissed.
The High Court found no substantial questions of law could be formulated. It noted that the ITAT's order, which directed the deletion of additions and demands based on the NCLT's extinguishment of dues, was consistent with previous judgments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to clearly specify which exceptional clause applied and the tax effect was below the threshold.
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the explanation satisfactory. However, it ultimately dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the ITAT's decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal based on the CBDT instruction regarding tax effect.
The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, the subsequent assessment order passed based on it became void ab initio. Therefore, no substantial questions of law arose.
The tribunal found no reason to condone the significant delay of 651 days. It noted the absence of a sufficient exception clause in the relevant circulars to justify the delay.
The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the case did not fall under any exceptional clause. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The authorities below were found to have misdirected themselves in blaming the assessee for shortcomings related to the loan giver.
The Tribunal held that purchases from the entity in the year under consideration were genuine as the AO found no discrepancy, and the assessee had offered the profit on subsequent sales to tax. The fact that purchases from the same entity were treated as bogus in another year was not sufficient to deem the current year's purchases as bogus.
The High Court found no substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had considered the evidence presented by the assessee, which proved the identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of transactions, and noted the AO's lack of comment on these evidences.
The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. It questioned whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the Section 263 order without considering the Principal CIT's invocation of Section 263 and Section 68, and whether the ITAT misinterpreted Section 263 and the deficiency in the Assessing Officer's investigation.
The Tribunal correctly set aside the revisionary order under Section 263. The Assessing Officer conducted a prima facie inquiry, and the assessee's classification of gains as long-term capital gains was justified based on investment intent and holding period, aligning with CBDT instructions.
The High Court held that the payments were contractual and not genuine reimbursements, as they were predetermined percentages of sales without a direct link to actual costs. Consequently, the failure to deduct TDS justified the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).
The High Court held that documented traceability through legitimate banking channels carries greater evidentiary weight than the Assessing Officer's suspicion. The Tribunal's findings, based on meticulous factual inquiry and 'cast iron' documentary evidence, were upheld.
The High Court held that once the assessee provides reasonable explanation with documentary evidence of identity and banking flow, the initial onus under Section 68 is discharged. The burden shifts to the Revenue, which cannot rely on suspicion without contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that once the assessee submits documents proving identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness, the Assessing Officer must conduct an independent inquiry. Since the AO failed to do so and did not point out discrepancies, the additions were not warranted.
The Court found that the issues raised did not pertain to questions of substantial legal importance that would warrant an exception to the monetary threshold for filing an appeal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose.
The High Court found that the issues raised did not pertain to questions of substantial legal importance that would warrant an exception to the monetary threshold for appeal. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court found that the issues raised did not constitute substantial legal importance to warrant an exception to the monetary threshold. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The High Court held that if the approval under Section 151 is not available, the assessment order under Section 147, the revisional order under Section 263, and the consequent order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 all become void ab initio. Therefore, no question of law arises.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid and bad in law due to the procedural irregularity of the notice being issued by an officer without the proper pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court agreed that the jurisdictional issue was rightly determined by the Tribunal.
The High Court held that the substantial question of law is to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. This decision was based on the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shital Fibers Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [2025] 476 ITR 309 (SC). The reasoning is that the Supreme Court's decision directly addresses the issue of whether deductions under Section 80IA should be reduced while computing profits eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The ratio decidendi is that such a reduction is not permissible, as established by the apex court. Consequently, the appeal ITA No. 405 of 2008 was disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's ruling, implying relief for the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court found no substantial questions of law arising from the ITAT's order. The court noted that the donation was made to a government-approved institution and was reflected in the audited accounts for the relevant assessment year.