ITAT Kolkata Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. The assessee's counsel argued that the delay should be condoned and the matter remanded for a decision on merits.

The ITAT condoned the 34-day delay in filing the appeal before it, acknowledging the assessee was prevented from filing in time. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 330 days, stating that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time due to their medical condition. The matter was remitted back to the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 360 days, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and cautioning the assessee to cooperate with future proceedings.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, setting aside the earlier ex-parte dismissal. It also cautioned the assessee to promptly cooperate with future proceedings.

The ITAT condoned the 1091-day delay, deeming it necessary for natural justice to allow the case to be heard on its merits. The matter was remitted back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) to dispose of the appeal without prejudice, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the assessee was prevented from filing it within the stipulated time. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, without being influenced by previous observations, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate promptly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, directing them to dispose of the appeals without prejudice from previous observations and cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, directing them to dispose of the appeals without prejudice from previous observations and cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had already made substantial suo moto disallowances related to exempt income. The Tribunal found that the AO's actions were not supported by the facts or by coordinate bench rulings. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It affirmed that the assessee was entitled to 30% depreciation, reiterating its prior ruling for AY 2009-10 that ownership of the moulds and their use for business purposes are key, regardless of whether they are used in the assessee's own factory or by third-party vendors.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on two grounds: first, for being filed with a 16-day delay and being procedurally defective (unsigned appeal, no condonation application); second, on merits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order of remand under Section 251(1)(a) as being in accordance with law, finding no need for interference.

The Tribunal held that filing the return within the time allowed under Section 139(4) is sufficient for claiming exemption under Sections 11 & 12, as clarified by CBDT circulars and judicial precedents. The denial of exemption was incorrect.

The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and condoned it. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on its merits, the ITAT set aside both the CIT(A)'s and the AO's orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, finding it barred by limitation and invalid due to the absence of proper digital signatures. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on these procedural grounds.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be lacking in adjudication and reasoning. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 92B of the Income Tax Act makes corporate guarantee an international transaction. However, it restricted the corporate guarantee commission to 0.5% instead of the TPO's calculation. The addition on account of land conversion charges was deleted.

The Tribunal noted the rejection was based on the assessee's non-response, which prevented verification of the trust's charitable activities. In the interest of justice and adherence to natural justice principles, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits despite a previous remand. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside both the CIT(A)'s and the AO's orders and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to re-examine the assessee's submissions, grant appropriate relief, and make additions only after providing a fresh opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided in the assessee's affidavit to be genuine and bonafide, and noting the revenue's lack of objection. Regarding the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12A(i)(ac)(iii), the Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) had rejected it in limine due to the assessee's failure to produce relevant papers. However, the assessee had filed Form 10AC for provisional approval and undertook to provide all necessary documents. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case and documents. Similarly, for the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(iii), the Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to submit documents, but also acknowledged that the assessee was a Section 8 company with provisional registration under both Section 12A and 80G. The Tribunal restored this appeal to the CIT(E) for a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit all necessary documents. The ratio is that technicalities should not prevent a decision on merits, and genuine reasons for non-compliance, coupled with a willingness to rectify, warrant an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It affirmed that the assessee was entitled to 30% depreciation, reiterating its prior ruling for AY 2009-10 that ownership of the moulds and their use for business purposes are key, regardless of whether they are used in the assessee's own factory or by third-party vendors.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It affirmed that the assessee was entitled to 30% depreciation, reiterating its prior ruling for AY 2009-10 that ownership of the moulds and their use for business purposes are key, regardless of whether they are used in the assessee's own factory or by third-party vendors.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the remand report from the AO, which did not contain any adverse comments regarding the evidence produced by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's imprisonment constituted 'sufficient cause' for the delay under Section 249(3) and that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering its merits. The ITAT condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing both the assessee and the AO an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002, makes Corporate Guarantee an international transaction. This position is supported by the decision in Redington (India) Ltd., which the Tribunal is bound to follow due to judicial discipline, overriding earlier ITAT decisions that did not consider this judgment. Therefore, the Corporate Guarantee is eligible for ALP adjustment. Regarding the quantum of adjustment, the Tribunal, following various precedents including M/s Graphite India Ltd., restricted the CG commission to 0.5% as against the 3% worked out by the TPO, granting consequential relief to the assessee. For the land conversion charges, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) applied the facts and law correctly and upheld the deletion of the addition. Thus, the Revenue succeeds partially on the CG issue and fails on the land conversion charges issue.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the e-portal did not provide an option for the correct section code, supported by an affidavit. The CIT(E)'s order and the assessee's submission were considered.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown inability to produce documents before the CIT(E) and had not complied with notices. In the interest of justice, the issues are restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeals appeared to be genuine and bonafide, and the Revenue did not object to condoning the delay. Considering that the case should be decided on merit, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal found the assessee's stated reasons for the significant delay to be insufficient and indicative of gross negligence. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay and upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's imprisonment constituted 'sufficient cause' for the delay under Section 249(3) and that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering its merits. The ITAT condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing both the assessee and the AO an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found the reasons for delay, as explained by the assessee in Form No.35, to be plausible. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal annulled the intimation under Section 143(1) because it was issued without a mandatory show cause notice. Furthermore, the disallowance was deemed unsustainable as Form 9A was filed along with the return before the extended due date, as permitted by CBDT Circular No.06/2023.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason bonafide. Considering the assessee's claim of lack of opportunity before the CIT(A) due to non-communication of notices, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found the reasons for delay, as explained by the assessee in Form No.35, to be plausible. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2) cannot be processed via an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, as it falls outside the prescribed criteria and conditions of Section 143(1). Consequently, the intimation issued by the CPC was quashed.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason bonafide. Considering the assessee's claim of lack of opportunity before the CIT(A) due to non-communication of notices, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason bonafide. Considering the assessee's claim of lack of opportunity before the CIT(A) due to non-communication of notices, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found the reasons for delay, as explained by the assessee in Form No.35, to be plausible. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's imprisonment constituted 'sufficient cause' for the delay under Section 249(3) and that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering its merits. The ITAT condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing both the assessee and the AO an opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason bonafide. Considering the assessee's claim of lack of opportunity before the CIT(A) due to non-communication of notices, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reason bonafide. Considering the assessee's claim of lack of opportunity before the CIT(A) due to non-communication of notices, and in the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted all appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found the reasons for delay, as explained by the assessee in Form No.35, to be plausible. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's imprisonment constituted 'sufficient cause' for the delay under Section 249(3) and that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering its merits. The ITAT condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted all appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing both the assessee and the AO an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reasons for delay. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given ample opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeals and, to uphold principles of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) to grant the assessee another opportunity of being heard, with a clear caution for the assessee to cooperate promptly.