ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2025

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also cautioned the assessee to promptly cooperate with the future proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Tribunal observed that while there was non-compliance before the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer also failed to consider documentary evidence submitted during assessment. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, re-examination of evidence, and an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Tribunal held that the import and export expenses were justified due to increased import purchases and supported by documentary evidence. It also found that the sundry creditors were genuine as they represented opening balances and new liabilities from purchases duly recorded in books.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Tribunal observed a lack of proper compliance by the assessee before both the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard and to furnish additional evidence as per Rule 46A.

The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee adequate opportunity to furnish evidence and directing them to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that the import and export expenses were justified due to increased import purchases and supported by documentary evidence. The addition on account of sundry creditors was also deleted as the AO did not dispute the purchases or sales.

The Tribunal held that mere deduction of TDS does not automatically make a receipt taxable income. The assessee had treated the receipts as reimbursement of expenditure and accounted for them accordingly, not as income. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee could not produce the crucial Section 201 order, which was the basis of the demand and the subject of the appeal, either before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, making adjudication impossible.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 on 12.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. It was determined that the relaxation granted by TOLA for the period 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 was not applicable to AY 2015-16, in line with Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Therefore, the reopening of assessment and the assessment framed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹50,22,990 in AY 2021-22 was a double addition, as this income was already offered and accepted for AY 2020-21. Therefore, the AO was directed to exclude this amount, resulting in the income for AY 2021-22 being assessed at ₹90,64,010. Regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE, the Tribunal found that since the assessee explained the source of income as business earnings from transportation, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable. Consequently, the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was also held to be inapplicable. The Tribunal directed the AO to adjust the seized cash against the self-assessment tax liability, citing decisions in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Narendra N. Thacker and Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ashok Kumar. This adjustment was also held to be applicable for charging interest under Section 234B, meaning interest would be calculated after adjusting the seized cash. The appeal for AY 2020-21 was allowed mutatis mutandis to the decision for AY 2021-22.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on both issues. It found the partial disallowance of expenses reasonable due to lack of complete evidence and confirmed the deletion of the addition for trade advances, citing Supreme Court and co-ordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by providing substantial documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital and share premium transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished details such as PAN, assessment orders, bank statements, and ROC data for the subscribers. The Tribunal found that the AO had not brought on record any evidence to the contrary and had not adequately explained how the overwhelming evidence provided by the assessee fell short of discharging the onus. Crucially, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the non-appearance of the directors of the shareholder companies cannot be a sole ground for making an addition under Section 68, citing various High Court and ITAT judgments, including the Delhi High Court in *Pr. CIT vs Hi-Tech Residency (P) Ltd*, where the SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal reasoned that when an assessee provides sufficient documentation proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, and the AO fails to conduct proper scrutiny or provide contrary evidence, the addition cannot be sustained. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The repayment of loans through banking channels further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The repayment of loans through banking channels further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The repayment of loans through banking channels further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The repayment of loans through banking channels further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The repayment of loans through banking channels further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technicality without addressing the merits. Recognizing the importance of fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity to be heard and to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not point out any defects in the documents submitted by the assessee and investors to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. Non-compliance with a summons for personal appearance does not invalidate otherwise substantiated transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal noted that similar deductions were allowed in previous assessment years and relied on judicial precedents regarding consistency in tax treatment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that retracted statements recorded under Section 133A have weak evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for an addition. The Tribunal also noted that the loans were repaid and sufficient evidence was provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of creditors, and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions. The additions were deleted as the assessee had discharged its onus.

The Tribunal held that invoking Section 69A for cash deposits already recorded in the books of account would lead to double taxation. It also held that an addition on account of suppressed sales cannot be sustained without rejecting the books of accounts under Section 145(3).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT invalidly invoked Section 263 as the AO had conducted an inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the share valuation. The AO's assessment was deemed neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash should be adjusted against the self-assessment tax liability. It also ruled that income declared from business activities, where the source is explained, cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed at the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay, drawing parallels with a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. It restored the entire issue, including the determination of the assessee's 'Old Settler of Sikkim' status, back to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, in light of the Supreme Court's established principles.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technicality without addressing the merits. Recognizing the importance of fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity to be heard and to present its case.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld its decision. The ITAT noted that the assessee had provided detailed explanations and supporting documents for both the capital contributions and cash deposits, which the Assessing Officer had failed to adequately dispute or consider.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, as one of 20 landowners in a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), was entitled to receive only 1% of the total realization, while the collective landowners' share was 22%. Consequently, the addition under Section 43CA was restricted to 1% of the initial difference, amounting to Rs. 28,367/-, and the orders of lower authorities were set aside with this direction.

The Tribunal condoned the 137-day delay, finding the reasons genuine and bonafide. It held that the amount of ₹1,21,00,000/- received in earlier assessment years could not be treated as cash credit under Section 68 in the current year. For the ₹13,00,000/- received in the current year, the Tribunal found that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, and thus directed the deletion of both parts of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deeming the reasons genuine. It held that money received in earlier assessment years cannot be treated as a cash credit in the current year and thus cannot be taxed under Section 68. The Tribunal also found that the share application money received during the year from group companies was duly supported by evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.

Following the precedent of its co-ordinate bench in identical matters, the tribunal condoned the 2033-day delay in filing the appeal. The case was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, with instructions to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Old Settlers of Sikkim'.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The repayment of loans through banking channels further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee another opportunity to correlate that the borrowed funds were indeed used for earning the interest income, ensuring compliance with Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, and passing a speaking order.

Following the ratio of the Kerala High Court in PCIT v. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., the Tribunal held that interest income from bank deposits made in the normal course of business by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the addition of ₹12,812 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal ruled that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable, as the tax effect was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. It further concluded that the case did not fall under any of the specified exceptions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Upon examination, the tribunal found that the issue did not fall under any of the exceptions provided in the Circular, thus rejecting the Department's contention.

The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal because the tax effect involved was below Rs.60 lakhs, making it non-maintainable as per Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of denial of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity to respond to the AO. In the interest of justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo reassessment, providing the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had primarily suffered due to inadequate presentation of facts before the lower authorities. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.