ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities erred in not considering the correct due date for filing the return for an LLP, which is September 30th as per the LLP Act. Since the assessee filed its return before this due date, it is entitled to carry forward the business loss.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was indeed below the threshold limit specified in the CBDT circular and the Revenue's counsel could not rebut this fact or provide any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,10,000/- under 'income from house property' and the disallowance of carry forward loss of Rs. 12,22,124/- were not warranted. The Assessing Officer took contradictory stands regarding property ownership and rental income estimation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a charitable society and suffered due to lack of vigilance. Considering the interests of substantive justice, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. AO/Addl. JCIT(A) for fresh consideration, advising the assessee to be vigilant regarding notices.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessment order was not time-barred due to the exclusion of the period for DVO reference and extensions granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It clarified that the reference to the DVO for property valuation was valid under the amended Section 142A for AY 2017-18, making Section 155(15) inapplicable to such references. The DVO's valuation was accepted as a valid expert opinion.

The ITAT admitted the additional ground of appeal, finding that the omission to raise it earlier was a bona fide oversight. The tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication of the additional ground relating to the penalty order, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, as certain facts required verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the existence of the asset. The inability to trace the supplier after several years should not negate the assessee's claim, especially when payment was made through account payee cheques and the asset was installed and used.

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the issues relating to alleged accommodation entries should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) must grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, allow production of directors and evidence, and may draw adverse inferences if the assessee fails to cooperate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the merits of the case, relying solely on the assessee's non-compliance with notices. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal without properly considering the merits or providing a sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that an additional ground was raised by the assessee, and both parties agreed to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) to adjudicate this additional ground. The Tribunal found it to be a fit case for remittal to examine the basic facts.

The ITAT, after considering the submissions, found the reasons provided for the 44-day delay to be bona fide and genuine. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit, directing that the assessee be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of substantive justice, despite the assessee's lack of diligence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 407 days in filing the appeal, finding a plausible reason. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It held that closing stock should be evaluated at the lower of cost or market value. The matter was remanded to the AO to examine the profit/loss from equity shares and its incorporation into the closing stock valuation, while also checking for artificial management of figures.

The Tribunal, noting that the Departmental Representative had no objection, granted the permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's contention of being under the control of the Official Liquidator. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the delay was solely due to non-service of the assessment order and condoned the delay of 121 days in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12A of the Act, following the rule of consistency and relying on its own previous judgment for subsequent assessment years. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on the incorrect premise that the assessee was not eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, despite initial non-cooperation, had provided additional evidence and requested a remand for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. The Departmental Representative did not object. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal on delay without proper adjudication was unjustified, especially since a remand report was previously called for. However, considering the assessment was made ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the Amended Deed dated 07.05.2014, which established the Trust's creation for both religious and charitable purposes. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for benefits under Section 115BBC.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal also decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the issue, providing an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal noted that there was a lack of proper compliance before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for reassessment, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed additional evidence and requested to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the documents. The Departmental Representative did not object to this.

The Tribunal noted that for exemption under Section 10(10D) for ULIP policies issued before April 1, 2012, the amount must be received as part of a matured policy or upon a specified contingency. Premature termination would not qualify for exemption, and gains would be taxed as capital gains. However, the Tribunal found a gap in fact-finding by the AO regarding the applicability of Section 10(10D).

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection, and consequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, with a caution for future cooperation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to plausible reasons. The appeals were dismissed on the ground of tax effect, as the Revenue could not show an exceptional clause permitting the appeal and had also dropped a penalty under Section 270 in the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and an appeal must be adjudicated on its merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, since the assessee could not provide any explanation for the suppressed turnover, admitted as erroneous, and failed to show justification for the delay despite multiple hearings, the appeal was dismissed on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a plausible reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal dismissed all the Revenue's appeals on the ground of tax effect, as the Senior DR could not present an exceptional clause for filing and because the penalty under Section 270 had already been dropped in the quantum assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee was not provided a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and thus set aside the order of the CIT(A). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was noted that the Revenue had dropped the penalty in the quantum assessment. The appeals were dismissed on the grounds of tax effect.

The Tribunal held the reassessment for AY 2013-14 invalid, as the AO failed to establish the assessee's non-disclosure of material facts after four years, aligning with Supreme Court precedents. It upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans, bogus purchases, and notional interest on cash loans, finding sufficient evidence from the assessee, banking transactions, and lack of incriminating material or proper cross-examination by the AO. Revenue's appeals were dismissed for all AYs, while assessee's COs were partly allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the 144-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. It observed that the case was decided ex-parte by the lower authorities, and in the interest of justice and fair play, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer to decide on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The CIT(Appeals) restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, acknowledging the fresh evidence submitted. The Tribunal confirmed this decision, noting that while the submission of fresh evidence to the CIT(Appeals) violates Rule 46A, the CIT(Appeals)'s action of restoring the case to the AO was appropriate and in the right perspective.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This remand is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of ₹1 Lakh to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority within 60 days, failing which the CIT(A)'s order would stand confirmed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned a 28-day delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities, and with no objection from the DR, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity to be heard, consider all documents, and pass a speaking order on merits.

The tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing that technicalities should not override substantial justice. It restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing them to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning "Old Settlers of Sikkim."

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s ex parte decision was due to non-prosecution by the assessee. In the interest of justice, and considering the request for an opportunity to present evidence regarding sundry creditors, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that both lower authorities decided the matter ex parte. Considering that the addition under Section 68 involves primary evidence verification, the Tribunal granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claim. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay, finding reasonable cause. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to Legal Aid Services within 60 days and cooperating with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 41,79,679/- as commission income. The Tribunal noted that in subsequent assessment years, the commission was accepted at 10% of TDS. Therefore, the same rate should apply for the assessment year 2011-12.