ITAT Kolkata Judgments — August 2025

The tribunal restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The AO is directed to consider the DVO's report dated 20.01.2025 for determining the long-term capital gain in respect of both immovable properties. The claim that one property was agricultural land will be re-examined considering its location within municipal limits as per the DVO.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is covered by the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Shalimar Pellet Feeds Ltd., which held that disallowance should only consider investments that have yielded exempt income. Following this precedent, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.

Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and the assessee was instructed to cooperate positively in the readjudication proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the 430-day delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for hearing. Observing that the assessee was non-cooperative before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was non-cooperative before the CIT(A), leading to the ex-parte dismissal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives adequate opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate positively in the re-adjudication proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that proper representation was not made by the assessee before the lower authorities. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present all evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity to present evidence or be heard at the AO and CIT(A) levels. Considering the grounds raised by the assessee regarding indexation and DVO report, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and allowing the AO to represent the case as per Rule 46A.

The Tribunal found that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer for invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Citing its own past decisions in the assessee's similar cases and judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such an omission makes the application of these provisions invalid, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee's authorized representative, despite appearing, made no submissions against the Addl./JCIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the order of the lower authority.

The Tribunal held that since the interest income accrued to and was accounted for by the assessee-Trust, and the corresponding TDS was reflected in the Form 26AS of the deceased (whose will formed the Trust), the CPC was incorrect in denying the TDS credit to the Trust. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that both the penalty imposition by the AO and the appeal before the CIT(A) were decided ex parte. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal ex-parte, determining that the adjournment application lacked valid reasons and that the counsel's non-uniform appearance violated SOP. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) regarding the TP adjustment and leave encashment, as the assessee failed to rebut any factual findings.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the large quantum of addition and principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to cooperate and be given adequate opportunity to present its case, and a 37-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) quashed the reopening of the assessment by applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Bansal. Since the revenue did not raise any ground challenging the CIT(A)'s action of quashing the reopening on technical grounds, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as non-survivable.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and DRP regarding the taxability of services for both appeals. However, for ITA No.543/Kol/2025 (Philips Electronics Nederland B.V.), it directed the AO to apply a flat tax rate of 10% for surcharge and cess as per Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the assessee's appeal. It noted that the assessee failed to appear or provide any submissions before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal to demonstrate how the lower orders were erroneous or why Rule 8D should not apply. The Tribunal also clarified that no separate addition for exempted dividend income beyond the Section 14A disallowance was evident in the assessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and DRP regarding the taxability of services for both appeals. However, for ITA No.543/Kol/2025 (Philips Electronics Nederland B.V.), it directed the AO to apply a flat tax rate of 10% for surcharge and cess as per Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA.

The Tribunal condoned the 85-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons plausible. It held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was unsustainable and suffered from an incurable infirmity as it lacked the mandatory intimation under the first proviso to Section 143(1) regarding the addition of corpus donation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to set aside the assessment for re-adjudication by the Assessing Officer. It distinguished the Delhi High Court ruling cited by the appellant, noting that in the present case, the department had made efforts to contact the legal heir. The Tribunal found the legal heir's conduct to be non-cooperative and stated that the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, thereby confirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to participate in the CIT(A) proceedings despite opportunities. To uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeal back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide both the assessee and the AO an opportunity of being heard and to consider Rule 46A if applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to a low tax effect, as the amount was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals to the ITAT, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024. The Revenue was granted the liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recall and revival of the appeal if the tax effect is later found to exceed the limit or the case falls under specific exceptions.

The Tribunal determined that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was unsustainable and quashed it, as the mandatory intimation required by the first proviso to Section 143(1) had not been issued to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed to the assessee if the income is assessable in her hands, even if the TDS certificate is in the name of her deceased husband. The assessee is entitled to claim the TDS credit as she has offered the corresponding income for taxation.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed to the assessee if the income is assessable in her hands, even if the TDS certificate is in the name of her deceased husband. The assessee is entitled to claim the TDS credit as she has offered the corresponding income for taxation.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on surplus funds invested in banks, which are not required for its primary business of providing credit facilities to its members, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P. This is because such income is considered 'other income' and not 'profits and gains of business' attributable to the specified activities.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, stating that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) erred by proceeding on merits after rejecting the condonation of delay. The ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details of PF/ESI deposits for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed to the assessee if the income is assessable in her hands, even if the TDS certificate is in the name of her deceased husband. The assessee is entitled to claim the TDS credit as she has offered the corresponding income for taxation.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, stating that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) erred by proceeding on merits after rejecting the condonation of delay. The ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details of PF/ESI deposits for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the valuation report was not made available to the AO. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of a significant time gap in accounting the bills between the assessee and its debtor. The assessee argued that it had filed detailed submissions and voluminous evidence, including bills and reconciliation statements, which the Ld. CIT(A) had not adequately considered. The Tribunal found that the difference in accounts arose from a reconciliation issue that was not accepted. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The assessee is to file specific bills for reconciliation, and the Ld. CIT(A) will consider these against the debtor's records. The Tribunal stated that a time gap in accounting does not automatically saddle the assessee with additional liability if the transactions are related. Ground No. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 2, concerning a calculation mistake, was also set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision based on the reconciliation. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was remitted for a fresh decision, with opportunities for both the assessee and the AO to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned both the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, finding the reasons given in the affidavit plausible. It restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be plausible. The Tribunal held that intimations issued under Section 143(1) without a show cause notice for proposed adjustments are void. Furthermore, denial of self-assessment tax credit is not a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the directors of M/s Jalaram Finvest Ltd. for confirmation, and the AO was instructed to examine the transactions, granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and for cross-examination. The Tribunal noted the transaction could be deemed bogus under Section 68 if the physical transfer of shares was unproven or share certificate numbers were missing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be plausible. The Tribunal held that intimations issued under Section 143(1) without a show cause notice for proposed adjustments are void. Furthermore, denial of self-assessment tax credit is not a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be plausible. The Tribunal held that intimations issued under Section 143(1) without a show cause notice for proposed adjustments are void. Furthermore, denial of self-assessment tax credit is not a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be plausible. The Tribunal held that intimations issued under Section 143(1) without a show cause notice for proposed adjustments are void. Furthermore, denial of self-assessment tax credit is not a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1).

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals before it, stating that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) erred by proceeding on merits after rejecting the condonation of delay. The ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details of PF/ESI deposits for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be plausible. The Tribunal held that intimations issued under Section 143(1) without a show cause notice for proposed adjustments are void. Furthermore, denial of self-assessment tax credit is not a permissible adjustment under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS should be allowed to the assessee if the income is assessable in her hands, even if the TDS certificate is in the name of her deceased husband. The assessee is entitled to claim the TDS credit as she has offered the corresponding income for taxation.