ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the AO/CPC's action of denying the benefit of Section 115BAA and invoking Section 115JB without a show cause notice, especially when the issue was debatable, was beyond the scope of Section 143(1). The order passed under Section 143(1) was quashed as invalid.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of expense allocation to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Regarding the income derived from export incentives and other sources, the Tribunal found that the assessee's reliance on previous ITAT orders was misplaced as those orders dealt with Section 263 proceedings, not original assessment orders.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte. Considering the assessee's petition explaining the non-appearance and for the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, noting the assessee's non-cooperation before the CIT(A), it restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for one appeal and Rs. 25,000 for the other, payable to Legal Aid Services, with a condition that failure to pay would result in confirmation of the AO's orders.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 0.15% to be erroneous, as it was below the admitted commission range. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.35% for accommodation entries. The Tribunal also clarified that protective additions would become substantive only if the main substantive addition against Sanjeev Kejriwal was deleted. The appeal seeking to tax the entire deposit was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the 180-day delay in filing both appeals. In the interest of justice, the issues in both appeals were restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperation, a cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the quantum appeal (ITA No.2664/Kol/2024), payable to Legal Aid Services within sixty days, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)'s order would be confirmed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, citing several judicial pronouncements that consider such delays procedural and bonafide. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the exemption under Section 11 be allowed as per law.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to present its case. It set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A), remitting the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a proper hearing and opportunity to submit all required documents.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acceding to the assessee's request based on their participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal through a miscellaneous application if the VSVS-24 scheme is unsuccessful for any reason.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the AO/CPC under Section 143(1) was not a prima facie adjustment, as it required detailed debate, discussion, and clarification of facts, particularly regarding the indexation benefit for capital gains. Therefore, the AO/CPC lacked the jurisdiction to make such an adjustment under Section 143(1), and the intimation was quashed.

The tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147, without supplying the reasons recorded for reopening to the assessee despite repeated requests, is bad in law and must be quashed. Citing precedents from the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, the tribunal emphasized that non-communication of reasons is a fundamental procedural lapse.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission of 0.25% to 0.50% on accommodation entries was a crucial fact. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 0.15% to be erroneous as it fell below the admitted lower percentage. For the appeals concerning Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited and Sanjeev Kejriwal (ITA No.2206/Kol/2024), the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt an income percentage of 0.35%, modifying the CIT(A)'s order. This was done on similar findings as in other related cases where a 0.35% rate was adopted. The Tribunal also noted that income should be taxed only once, either in the hands of the assessee or related parties. For ITA No.1702/KOL/2024, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had estimated the income at 0.5%, and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos.97-100/Kol/2024 and ITA No.2206/Kol/2024.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 0.15% to be erroneous, as it was below the admitted commission range. It directed the AO to adopt a commission rate of 0.35% for accommodation entries. The Tribunal also clarified that protective additions would become substantive only if the main substantive addition against Sanjeev Kejriwal was deleted. The appeal seeking to tax the entire deposit was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not acceptable for AY 2015-16, as the cash deposits were admittedly made during FY 2016-17, relevant to AY 2017-18. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte. Considering the assessee's petition explaining the non-appearance and for the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the 1738-day delay, finding the reasons genuine and unopposed by the revenue. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission income of 0.25% to 0.5% on accommodation entries is a crucial fact. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was erroneous as it fell below the lower end of the admitted range. The Tribunal reasoned that the reliance on Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the CIT(A) was misplaced, as the percentage fixed by the Hon'ble High Court was based on the specific facts before it, not a universal standard. The Tribunal determined that a commission rate of 0.35% was appropriate, considering the admitted range of 0.25% to 0.5%. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessees at 0.35% for the accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that these were protective additions and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal have been deleted, which would then make these protective additions substantive.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission of 0.25% to 0.50% on accommodation entries was a crucial fact. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 0.15% to be erroneous as it fell below the admitted lower percentage. For the appeals concerning Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited and Sanjeev Kejriwal (ITA No.2206/Kol/2024), the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt an income percentage of 0.35%, modifying the CIT(A)'s order. This was done on similar findings as in other related cases where a 0.35% rate was adopted. The Tribunal also noted that income should be taxed only once, either in the hands of the assessee or related parties. For ITA No.1702/KOL/2024, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had estimated the income at 0.5%, and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos.97-100/Kol/2024 and ITA No.2206/Kol/2024.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission of 0.25% to 0.50% on accommodation entries was a crucial fact. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 0.15% to be erroneous as it fell below the admitted lower percentage. For the appeals concerning Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited and Sanjeev Kejriwal (ITA No.2206/Kol/2024), the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt an income percentage of 0.35%, modifying the CIT(A)'s order. This was done on similar findings as in other related cases where a 0.35% rate was adopted. The Tribunal also noted that income should be taxed only once, either in the hands of the assessee or related parties. For ITA No.1702/KOL/2024, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had estimated the income at 0.5%, and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos.97-100/Kol/2024 and ITA No.2206/Kol/2024.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission of 0.25% to 0.50% on accommodation entries was a crucial fact. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation of 0.15% to be erroneous as it fell below the admitted lower percentage. For the appeals concerning Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited and Sanjeev Kejriwal (ITA No.2206/Kol/2024), the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt an income percentage of 0.35%, modifying the CIT(A)'s order. This was done on similar findings as in other related cases where a 0.35% rate was adopted. The Tribunal also noted that income should be taxed only once, either in the hands of the assessee or related parties. For ITA No.1702/KOL/2024, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had estimated the income at 0.5%, and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos.97-100/Kol/2024 and ITA No.2206/Kol/2024.

The Tribunal found that the original assessment order for AY 2014-15, passed on 21.02.2017, was time-barred as the limitation period under Section 153(1) expired on 31.12.2016. Consequently, an invalid and time-barred assessment order cannot be subject to revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, leading to the quashing of the Section 263 order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, noting the assessee's non-cooperation before the CIT(A), it restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for one appeal and Rs. 25,000 for the other, payable to Legal Aid Services, with a condition that failure to pay would result in confirmation of the AO's orders.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that the assessee had successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscribers, and the genuineness of the share capital/premium transactions during the remand proceedings. A substantial portion of the amount related to preceding financial years, further supporting the deletion of the addition under Section 68 for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission income of 0.25% to 0.5% on accommodation entries is a crucial fact. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was erroneous as it fell below the lower end of the admitted range. The Tribunal reasoned that the reliance on Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the CIT(A) was misplaced, as the percentage fixed by the Hon'ble High Court was based on the specific facts before it, not a universal standard. The Tribunal determined that a commission rate of 0.35% was appropriate, considering the admitted range of 0.25% to 0.5%. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessees at 0.35% for the accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that these were protective additions and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal have been deleted, which would then make these protective additions substantive.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission income of 0.25% to 0.5% on accommodation entries is a crucial fact. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was erroneous as it fell below the lower end of the admitted range. The Tribunal reasoned that the reliance on Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the CIT(A) was misplaced, as the percentage fixed by the Hon'ble High Court was based on the specific facts before it, not a universal standard. The Tribunal determined that a commission rate of 0.35% was appropriate, considering the admitted range of 0.25% to 0.5%. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessees at 0.35% for the accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that these were protective additions and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal have been deleted, which would then make these protective additions substantive.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission income of 0.25% to 0.5% on accommodation entries is a crucial fact. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was erroneous as it fell below the lower end of the admitted range. The Tribunal reasoned that the reliance on Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the CIT(A) was misplaced, as the percentage fixed by the Hon'ble High Court was based on the specific facts before it, not a universal standard. The Tribunal determined that a commission rate of 0.35% was appropriate, considering the admitted range of 0.25% to 0.5%. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessees at 0.35% for the accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that these were protective additions and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal have been deleted, which would then make these protective additions substantive.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission income of 0.25% to 0.5% on accommodation entries is a crucial fact. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was erroneous as it fell below the lower end of the admitted range. The Tribunal reasoned that the reliance on Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the CIT(A) was misplaced, as the percentage fixed by the Hon'ble High Court was based on the specific facts before it, not a universal standard. The Tribunal determined that a commission rate of 0.35% was appropriate, considering the admitted range of 0.25% to 0.5%. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessees at 0.35% for the accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that these were protective additions and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal have been deleted, which would then make these protective additions substantive.

The Tribunal held that Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal's admission of earning a commission income of 0.25% to 0.5% on accommodation entries is a crucial fact. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reduction of the commission rate to 0.15% was erroneous as it fell below the lower end of the admitted range. The Tribunal reasoned that the reliance on Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. by the CIT(A) was misplaced, as the percentage fixed by the Hon'ble High Court was based on the specific facts before it, not a universal standard. The Tribunal determined that a commission rate of 0.35% was appropriate, considering the admitted range of 0.25% to 0.5%. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessees at 0.35% for the accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that these were protective additions and directed the Assessing Officer to verify if substantive additions made in the hands of Shri Sanjeev Kejriwal have been deleted, which would then make these protective additions substantive.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the documents afresh and provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the 33-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons plausible. While noting the assessee's non-cooperation in the original proceedings, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

Citing judgments on jurisdictional matters, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to improper jurisdiction. However, it granted the assessee liberty to file a fresh appeal before the correct jurisdictional bench, along with a petition for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case and similar matters. The assessee's cross-objections concerning the bank balance discrepancy were partly allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation as it originated from earlier years and was deemed reconcilable.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This remand is conditional on the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to Legal Aid Services within sixty days. Failure to provide proof of payment at the first hearing or pay the costs within the stipulated period will result in the confirmation of the Ld. CIT(A)'s original order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a non-resident under Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act. Since the services were rendered outside India and there was no evidence that the income accrued or arose in India, it was not taxable in India. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions.

The tribunal condoned the 464-day delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This is subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs.50,000/- to Legal Aid Services within sixty days.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the foundational Section 263 order had already been quashed by a coordinate bench and this decision was affirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the consequential assessment order could not survive and dismissed the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that filing Form No. 67 is directory, not mandatory, and a delay in filing does not preclude the claim for FTC. The assessee is entitled to the FTC in accordance with the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a non-resident under Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act. Since the services were rendered outside India and there was no evidence that the income accrued or arose in India, it was not taxable in India. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case and similar matters. The assessee's cross-objections concerning the bank balance discrepancy were partly allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation as it originated from earlier years and was deemed reconcilable.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to prove their transactions and provide details. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to draw adverse inference if the assessee did not cooperate.

The Tribunal noted that for the preceding assessment year 2009-2010, a coordinate bench of the Tribunal had already deleted a similar addition. Finding no difference in the facts for the impugned assessment year, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme. It granted the assessee the liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal if, for any reason, the application for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, is not accepted by the department.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a technical error in filing the application under the wrong clause of Section 80G due to confusion with the amended provisions. The CIT (Exemption) was directed to reconsider the application and grant approval if the assessee is otherwise eligible.

The Tribunal, after perusing the petition, found the reasons for the delay to be acceptable and condoned the delay. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case and similar matters. The assessee's cross-objections concerning the bank balance discrepancy were partly allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation as it originated from earlier years and was deemed reconcilable.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the assessee's entitlement to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on prior Tribunal decisions in the assessee's own case and similar matters. The assessee's cross-objections concerning the bank balance discrepancy were partly allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconciliation as it originated from earlier years and was deemed reconcilable.

The Tribunal found that there was improper representation from the assessee during assessment and appeal proceedings. Therefore, to ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and granted another opportunity to the assessee to present its case properly before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and a nullity because the jurisdictional AO (ACIT Circle 11(2)) failed to issue a mandatory Section 143(2) notice after the case transfer, and the transfer of the assessment file itself was irregular, lacking an administrative order from the PCIT under Section 127(3). The Tribunal relied on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Kusum Goyal Vs. ITO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. In the interest of justice, and acknowledging the assessee's admitted failure, the Tribunal restored all issues in the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to substantiate claims.