ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal found that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was issued in a mechanical manner, without application of mind, as the Ld. AO did not strike off the irrelevant limb or specify the charge. Citing precedent, the Tribunal held such a notice to be invalid, rendering the subsequent penalty order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reason provided for the 388-day delay in filing the appeal, which was the death of the Chartered Accountant, was not cogent as the assessee pursued the matter before the CIT(Appeals) after the demise. Therefore, the delay could not be condoned.

The tribunal found that the Rs. 20,00,000 was transferred via RTGS from the partner's HSBC account and was duly shown as capital and liability in the firm's balance sheet, supported by the Partnership Deed and P&L Account. The tribunal concluded that it was a genuine capital introduction by the NRI partner and should not be treated as undisclosed income in the hands of the firm.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on the Special Bench Mumbai Tribunal's ruling that DDT under Section 115-O is a tax on the company's income and not on the shareholder, hence the DTAA provisions are not applicable to it.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's own computation, which is a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Consequently, the higher disallowance made by the AO was deleted, while the suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee was retained.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on the Special Bench Mumbai Tribunal's ruling that DDT under Section 115-O is a tax on the company's income and not on the shareholder, hence the DTAA provisions are not applicable to it.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had declared 5% profit on unrecorded sales. The AO's estimation of 8% was reduced to 5.5% by the CIT(A) without substantive basis. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the suo moto profit disclosed during the search proceedings was reasonable. The Tribunal also noted that co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal had applied 5% on unrecorded sales in the cited cases. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to accept the profit at the rate of 5% as declared by the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The ITAT, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify the documents produced by the assessee and provide a sufficient opportunity of being heard, with the assessee also directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal perused the withdrawal application and found it appropriate to allow the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a basis for the 10% commission rate. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 5% commission rate on the accommodation entries.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals ex-parte without considering their merits. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to decide them afresh and cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and the principle of natural justice, condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matter back to the learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate promptly with the proceedings.

The ITAT condoned the 305-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merit, ensuring natural justice, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted relevant documents to the ITAT which were allegedly not considered by the lower authorities, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of documents, verification of payment modes, and to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a fresh opportunity of being heard, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to adjudicate the legal issue regarding the lack of proper approval under section 151 for the notice issued under section 148. Citing the Allahabad High Court decision in Reliable Finhold Limited, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the absence of the required jurisdictional approval.

The Tribunal, relying on various Coordinate Bench decisions, held that the requirement to file Form 67 is merely directory and not mandatory to be filed by the due date of the return under Section 139(1). Therefore, the assessee is eligible to claim the foreign tax credit, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the 391-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee was prevented from filing it on time. It ruled that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the assessee's appeal for "statistical purposes," as the assessment order being 'non-est' meant the appeal should have been allowed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made by the cooperative society from its primary activities is attributable to those activities and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. case.

The ITAT observed that the assessee had submitted various documents, including evidence of dishonored cheques, classification of loans as doubtful debts, and eventual principal recovery without interest from one party, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the submitted documents afresh, provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and pass a speaking order based on the merits.

The ITAT acknowledged that CBDT Circular No. 07/2024 extended the re-registration deadline to June 30, 2024, and the assessee obtained provisional registration within this extended period. Considering the bona fide nature of the appellant's default and the CBDT Circular, the ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and to pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal found that no show-cause notice was issued to the assessee before making adjustments under Section 143(1), which is a mandatory procedural requirement as per the first proviso to Section 143 of the Income Tax Act. Citing earlier pronouncements, the Tribunal concluded that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was unsustainable and quashed the adjustments, allowing the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based purely on estimation, hypothesis, and guesswork, which is impermissible under the Income Tax Act. It observed that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits, and the AO's allegations of bogus or fraudulent transactions were baseless. Thus, the addition was deemed arbitrary, erroneous, and not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a basis for the 10% commission rate. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a 5% commission rate on the accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) erred in rejecting the corpus donation. It directed the Assessing Officer to treat the amount as corpus donation and capitalize it, setting aside the addition made to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and the principle of natural justice, condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remitted the matter back to the learned CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeals on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate promptly with the proceedings.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the Rs.14,50,000/- addition, as the assessee failed to establish the sources (savings, gifts, father-in-law's money). However, the ITAT deleted the Rs.10,06,162/- addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that it was a mere transfer of funds from her old ING Vysya Bank account to her Kotak Mahindra Bank account.

The ITAT observed that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals ex-parte without considering their merits. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to decide them afresh and cautioned the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the AO failed to link the addition of bogus share capital to any incriminating material found during the search. Citing the Supreme Court's *Abhiser Buildwell* judgment, the ITAT reiterated that additions without incriminating material for unabated assessment years under Section 153C are invalid.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the AO failed to link the addition of bogus share capital to any incriminating material found during the search. Citing the Supreme Court's *Abhiser Buildwell* judgment, the ITAT reiterated that additions without incriminating material for unabated assessment years under Section 153C are invalid.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment order, which formed the basis for the PCIT's revisionary proceedings under Section 263, had already been quashed by the Tribunal prior to the PCIT passing its order. It ruled that revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be exercised over a non-existent or quashed order, thereby rendering the PCIT's revisionary order without jurisdiction and unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order dated 29.03.2025.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the statements relied upon by the AO were not relevant to the assessee's case. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were repaid and followed precedents where repayment of loans negates the invocation of Section 68.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in its decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) had correctly noted that the AO relied on third-party statements without allowing cross-examination and without independent inquiry, despite the assessee providing comprehensive documentation for the purchases, which were also accepted by the VAT department.

The Tribunal found that the non-allowance of TDS was due to technical errors or wrong alphabets in PAN credits, which was a human error and not with malafide intent. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with directions to pass a fresh order as per law after hearing the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on the doctrine of merger, as the adjustments made in the 143(1) intimation were not reversed or adjudicated in the subsequent 143(3) order. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to decide the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal found that the non-allowance of TDS was due to technical errors or wrong alphabets in PAN credits, which was a human error and not with malafide intent. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted both appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, with directions to pass a fresh order as per law after hearing the assessee.

The ITAT condoned the 939-day delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal approach to substantial justice. It found the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal due to a factual error regarding the search date (correct date being 15.03.2016, not 15.03.2015) and consequent abatement. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in compliance with the mandatory formats prescribed by the CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was rendered invalid.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's submission of additional documentary evidence and for the interest of justice, decided to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider the fresh evidences and pass a fresh order, thereby allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed the substantial delay in filing the appeal and the complete absence of a condonation petition. Finding no sufficient reason to condone the delay, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in the eyes of law and accordingly dismissed it in limine.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had meticulously analyzed the bank statements and found a pattern of 'round tripping' of funds among group companies. The premium on shares was arbitrarily fixed without any financial rationale, and the investors lacked business operations to justify such investments.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance in earlier proceedings but, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present evidence. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee, payable within 60 days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would stand confirmed.

The tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order cryptic and non-speaking, noting that the submitted details and evidence were not adequately considered. Therefore, the tribunal set aside both impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit necessary details and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and fair play, set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A). The appeal was remitted back to the Addl/JCIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard and to pass an order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the mandatory prior intimation, as required by the first proviso to Section 143(1) of the Act, was not issued to the assessee before making the adjustments. Therefore, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was held to be bad in law and was consequently quashed.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adequately examine the assessee's claim regarding the dissolution of the lending entity and failed to grant a proper opportunity to furnish supporting documents. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all necessary evidence and the Ld. CIT(A) to verify the loan transactions afresh.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid. For AY 2015-16, the notice was considered time-barred as it was uploaded for communication on April 1, 2021, despite being dated March 31, 2021. For AY 2013-14, the notice was issued manually without a Document Identification Number (DIN) and without proper approval, making it invalid as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to revive it if unsuccessful in the VSVS scheme.