ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was justified. The grounds raised by the assessee regarding limitation, lack of proper hearing, reliance on case laws, and non-satisfaction of twin conditions for Section 263 were dismissed. The PCIT correctly exercised revisionary powers.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether additions under Section 14A should be considered for book profit computation under Section 115JB is a debatable issue. Furthermore, on merits, various High Court and Tribunal decisions prohibit such additions for book profit calculation.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was pending before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the penalty issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the quantum matter.

The tribunal held that the PCIT's approval under Section 151, merely stating "as approved" or "yes" without recording reasons or showing application of mind, was mechanical and invalid. Citing precedents, the tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment framed under Section 147.

The Tribunal found that the approval granted by the PCIT for the reopening was mechanical, merely stating 'as approved' or stamping 'yes' without recording satisfaction or proper reasons. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that such mechanical approval invalidates the Section 148 notice and the subsequent assessment framed under Section 147.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without addressing the merits, which was a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit, ensuring reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and advising against unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, relying on precedents, held that mechanical approval by the PCIT for reopening an assessment under Section 151, without independent application of mind and explicit reasons, is invalid. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and the assessment framed under Section 147 were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT's approval, merely stating "as approved" or "yes" without recording reasons or satisfaction, constituted a mechanical approval not sustainable in law. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, it held that such an invalid approval rendered the reopening notice u/s 148 and the subsequent assessment u/s 147 bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's approval, given mechanically without recording reasons or satisfaction, was invalid and not sustainable in law. Citing precedents from the Apex Court and High Courts, it concluded that such a mechanical approval rendered the notice u/s 148 and the subsequent assessment framed u/s 147 bad in law. Consequently, the notice and assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without proper legal heir representation are void ab initio. The issuance of a show-cause notice and passing of an assessment order in the name of a dead person, especially when the department was aware of the death, renders the entire proceedings null and void.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's partner's medical condition. It noted that the assessee was not properly represented before the lower authorities and decided to set aside both orders, remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 29.09.2020, before the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, which allowed disallowance for belated returns, came into effect on 01.04.2021. Therefore, the CPC lacked the jurisdiction to make such a disallowance at that time. The disallowance was deemed invalid and bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed without a decision on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to provide the assessee another opportunity to file submissions, justify the genuineness of activities, correct the section code if needed, and hear the assessee before deciding the application afresh, emphasizing the importance of examining the charitable activities.

The Tribunal condoned the 28-day delay, relying on a Supreme Court judgment concerning Covid-19 related limitation period exclusions. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if the donation was a general or corpus donation, clarifying that no addition should be made if it was a corpus donation.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim before the AO. The issues were restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, with a caution that adverse inference may be drawn if the assessee fails to cooperate.

The Tribunal, relying on its Co-ordinate Bench's previous decision in the assessee's own case, ruled that composing and DTP services for publishing books are not "technical services" under Section 194J. Therefore, the assessee correctly deducted TDS at 2% under Section 194C. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 40(a)(ia) was accordingly deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied credit for TDS deducted from their salary, even if the deductor failed to deposit it with the government, as per Section 205 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request and in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Id. AO by restoring the issues for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee cooperates.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for another opportunity to present its case and, in the interest of justice, granted it. The issues in all three appeals are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, provided the assessee cooperates, otherwise the AO is at liberty to draw adverse inference.

The Tribunal determined that based on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajiv Bansal, the extended time limit for issuing the Section 148 notice for AY 2016-17 was 13.06.2022. As the notice was issued on 20.07.2022, it was beyond the limitation period. Therefore, the Section 148 notice and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated the issues on merit, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not heard before issuing the intimation u/s.143(1), the issue should be restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT condoned the 101-day delay in filing the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity of being heard, in line with principles of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the issue pertains to whether the mutual fund investment was unexplained. The Tribunal found that the entire gamut of transactions in the bank account from which purchases and mutual fund investments were made needs to be examined.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained expenditure on coal purchases from the Majee Group was not sustainable as there was no concrete evidence linking the assessee to the alleged purchases or unaccounted manufacturing. For the bogus unsecured loans, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding that the transactions were genuine and repaid.

The ITAT condoned the 139-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's lack of knowledge about the online appellate order and the counsel's ill-health. Observing that the assessee failed to submit necessary details during the assessment, the ITAT restored all grounds of appeal back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 24-day delay in appeal filing and deleted the addition made under Section 69B. It held that the jewellery, being 469.080 grams, was within the 500-gram limit for a normal housewife as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and could be considered Streedhan from accounted sources, especially given the assessee's substantial income of over Rs. 12.25 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 57 days, holding that it was due to non-service of the assessment order and to ensure the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. After reviewing the facts, the Tribunal found no evidence of the alleged transaction in the assessee's books or bank statements, nor any credit reflecting such a transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deemed not legal.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back, directing the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 330 days considering the facts and circumstances and the assessee being prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the lower appellate authority to provide an opportunity for a hearing, remitting the matter back.

The ITAT condoned the 74-day delay, accepting that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. To ensure natural justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)' order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, providing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal, noting that the merits were not addressed, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the case back to the AO. This was done to provide the assessee one last opportunity to present their case, ensuring principles of natural justice, with a caution for cooperation.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions as no specific show cause notice was issued to the assessee before enhancement. Therefore, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). No evidence was produced to support the claim of change of counsel or the demise of the earlier counsel.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the grounds of natural justice and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, providing the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided an explanation for the cash deposits in the bank account. Therefore, it restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, instructing that the assessee be given adequate opportunity of being heard and cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasons provided by the Revenue. However, it was held that the appeal is not maintainable as the tax effect is less than the threshold stipulated by the CBDT circular and no exceptions were demonstrated by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the purchases from M/s. Hiraani Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. were clearly bogus, as evidenced by the lack of details in the invoices, the unverified existence of the supplier, and the statement of Niraj Nathani. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of these purchases.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard, to ensure the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the shares were acquired through a demerger, which was not disputed, and the allotment was beyond the assessee's control. Since the AO had already accepted the exemption for a portion of the same shares, the entire addition under Section 68 was deleted, and the assessee was granted the benefit of Section 10(38) exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee filed its return of income within the extended due date as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction under Section 80P of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 66 days, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, providing an opportunity to the assessee.

For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, completely deleting the addition under Section 69C, finding no substantive evidence of unaccounted coal purchases from Majee Group. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 68 addition, as the assessee provided full evidence, including repayment of the loan, disproving accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income is earned by the assessee. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after the permissible time limit of 04.07.2022. Consequently, the proceedings resulting in the assessment order were deemed legally untenable due to the invalid assumption of jurisdiction.