ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had no basis for estimating profit at 5% and set aside that part of the order. The Tribunal followed High Court decisions which treated the sale of investments as not being unexplained cash credits.

The ITAT held that the entire transaction was with an entity of the State Govt. of West Bengal, and there was no reason to infer suppression of purchase price. The Tribunal also reasoned that the State Govt. would not sell property below the circle rate.

The Tribunal held that when an Assessing Officer accepts the returned income under Section 143(3) without making any additions or disallowances, there is no basis for any demand under Section 156. A demand notice cannot exist independently or contrary to the assessment order. It is settled law that a demand notice must follow the assessment order, and if the assessment creates no tax liability, issuing a demand notice is bad in law. Since the assessment order did not create any tax demand, but a Section 156 notice was issued raising a demand without supporting computation in the assessment order, it is not sustainable. However, the manner of computation of the demand requires factual verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for limited verification. The impugned demand raised under Section 156 without basis is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's contention that the notice issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 was barred by limitation, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Bansal, noting the notice was issued on July 3, 2022, while the extended limitation expired on June 15, 2022. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remit the matter but directed the AO to specifically verify and determine if the impugned notice under Section 148A(d) was issued within the prescribed limitation period as per the Rajesh Bansal judgment. The AO is instructed to decide the matter afresh on merits thereafter, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against the dissolved entity, Kalna Regulated Market Committee, was void ab initio and unsustainable in law, citing pronouncements from the Hon'ble Apex Court and Delhi High Court. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against the dissolved entity, Kalna Regulated Market Committee, was void ab initio and unsustainable in law, citing pronouncements from the Hon'ble Apex Court and Delhi High Court. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to produce relevant documents, including Form 27C, to substantiate her case. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to produce relevant documents, including Form 27C, to substantiate her case. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against the dissolved entity, Kalna Regulated Market Committee, was void ab initio and unsustainable in law, citing pronouncements from the Hon'ble Apex Court and Delhi High Court. Consequently, the penalties levied were also deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the affidavit submitted by the assessee did not provide any valid reasons for the substantial delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and the Assessing Officer failed to provide contradictory evidence. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to produce relevant documents, including Form 27C, to substantiate her case. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to produce relevant documents, including Form 27C, to substantiate her case. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found that the assessee miserably failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions involving funds received from and shares purchased from M/s Crown Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the assessee could not substantiate its claims with credible evidence.

The Tribunal, while considering the historical allowance of similar expenses in previous assessment years and the necessity of staff for managing bank accounts generating interest income, directed the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure claimed by the assessee for salary expenses.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found that the assessee miserably failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions involving funds received from and shares purchased from M/s Crown Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the assessee could not substantiate its claims with credible evidence.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and the Assessing Officer failed to provide contradictory evidence. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's contention that the notice issued under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 was barred by limitation, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Bansal, noting the notice was issued on July 3, 2022, while the extended limitation expired on June 15, 2022. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to remit the matter but directed the AO to specifically verify and determine if the impugned notice under Section 148A(d) was issued within the prescribed limitation period as per the Rajesh Bansal judgment. The AO is instructed to decide the matter afresh on merits thereafter, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to produce relevant documents, including Form 27C, to substantiate her case. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs.77,80,000/- under Section 69A, finding it to be sales proceeds collected as a commission agent and already offered to tax. The disallowance of bad debts of Rs.90,006/- was also deleted as it was written off in the accounts. However, the disallowance of Rs.50,500/- for charity & donation was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the share capital and premium were issued on a barter basis (allotment of shares in lieu of investments in another company) without any actual money movement to the assessee. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable to such barter transactions. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee liberty to raise all legal issues and ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer is empowered to draw adverse inference if the assessee fails to cooperate or provide details during reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from deposits in commercial banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. case and relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vavveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unjustified as the amount was a repayment of a loan advanced by the assessee, not a fresh loan received. The AO's premise was based on misrepresentation of facts, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee liberty to raise all legal issues and ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer is empowered to draw adverse inference if the assessee fails to cooperate or provide details during reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was done beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, following an original assessment under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer failed to record any finding that the assessee did not disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a mandatory condition under the 1st Proviso to Section 147. Citing ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. (SC), the Tribunal concluded the reopening was bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days, acknowledging the assessee was prevented from filing on time. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, emphasizing principles of natural justice and cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the 159-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting that the assessee was prevented from filing it on time. It set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee another opportunity of being heard, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the business is considered 'set up' when the assessee acquires the necessary wherewithal and physical infrastructure, even if awaiting commencement. Expenses incurred after setting up but before commencement are deductible. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the benefit of expenses as claimed.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee liberty to raise all legal issues and ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard. The Assessing Officer is empowered to draw adverse inference if the assessee fails to cooperate or provide details during reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(Appeals) to provide another opportunity of hearing to the assessee based on principles of natural justice. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the insurance maturity bonus, upholding its taxability under Section 10(10D) as the premium paid exceeded the prescribed limit (20% of sum assured). For the confirmed cash addition of ₹53,000, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to furnish confirmations and explanations.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹61,49,041/- was made solely on the basis of unverified third-party seized documents from M/s J.M. Jain LLP, which were not seized from the assessee's premises and were not provided for rebuttal. This violates the principle that additions cannot be made on unverified third-party material, as held in ACIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar. Suspicion cannot replace evidence. The AO failed to establish a direct nexus between the assessee and the seized material, and the assessee had produced supporting documents for its recorded purchases. Crucially, the AO did not invoke Section 145(3) to reject the books of account, and estimation of income is permissible only after such rejection, as per PCIT v. Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd. The presumption under Section 292C is inapplicable as documents were seized from a third party. Failure to furnish seized material violated natural justice, as per Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT. Therefore, the addition was not supported by tangible material, was based on suspicion and third-party information, and was legally unsustainable. The addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was set aside, the penalty order derived from it became void ab initio. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty confirmation was allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by submitting sufficient documentary evidence, including accounts of the parties and bank statements. It noted that payments were made against opening balances only, and the CIT(A) had not made any adverse comments on the identity of the creditors. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 68, finding no justification for it.

The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vague, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on binding precedents from the Hon'ble High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that such a defective notice invalidates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vague, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on binding precedents from the Hon'ble High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that such a defective notice invalidates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to examine the details filed by the assessee and pass a speaking order, ensuring the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was vague, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on binding precedents from the Hon'ble High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that such a defective notice invalidates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted relevant details, which were allegedly not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the characterization of the Mutual Fund gain as short-term or long-term capital gain, after affording the assessee a fresh opportunity to present evidence.

The ITAT condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on its merits. The assessee was cautioned to cooperate with the CIT(A) proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned a 245-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's mental illness. It subsequently set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate with the proceedings.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex parte without verifying proper notice service, thereby violating natural justice. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act dated 31.03.2014 was invalid. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not struck off the irrelevant limb or specified the limb under which the penalty was proposed to be levied, stating both limbs in the notice. This mechanical issuance of a standard format notice without application of mind prevented the assessee from replying to the correct charge. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in KPC Medical College and Hospital vs. PCIT reported in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 581 (Calcutta), which in turn relied on the decision in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) and the Supreme Court's affirmation in CIT v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). The Tribunal concluded that the notice was bad in law, and consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated. Therefore, the assessment framed and the penalty imposed were quashed. The appeals for all assessment years were allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had availed the unsecured loan and repaid the entire amount within two months, both transactions conducted through banking channels. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by law, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had fully disclosed all relevant particulars and there was no concealment of facts or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not automatically invite a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty imposed by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee committed to advance tax, they had filed an ITR and had not paid it, and no incriminating material (except a stock difference attributed to an un-updated register, which wasn't produced) was found. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard and submit all relevant details.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. It directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, consider further submissions, and ensure compliance with Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962.