ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's plea for another opportunity, remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not discussed the issue on merits and simply upheld the AO's order. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of all documents and to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied solely on the procedural ground of delayed filing of Form 10B, especially when there are bona fide reasons for the delay. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was made after 3 years and the actual additions made were significantly less than ₹50 lakhs, failing to meet the condition for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). The assessee's letter to treat the original return as compliance to the Section 148 notice was considered sufficient. The reopening was also quashed as it was based on probable names and suspicious transactions without definite findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the 5th Proviso to Section 32(1) was not applicable to goodwill generated from amalgamation. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding Section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 cannot be made solely on the ground of non-compliance to summons when all necessary information and documents were furnished by the assessee and subscribers. The AO did not conduct independent investigation on the provided evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was void ab initio due to the AO's borrowed satisfaction and lack of independent application of mind. Furthermore, even on merits, the addition was unsustainable as the AO relied solely on an investigation report and a retracted statement without corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on borrowed satisfaction as the AO had not applied his mind to the information received and the reasons recorded were vague. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was not in consonance with the mandatory CBDT instructions, rendering it invalid. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and the assessment order were void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by NFAC was without jurisdiction as Section 151A, which empowers faceless assessments, was notified on March 29, 2022. Therefore, any assessment framed prior to this date by NFAC is null and void.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-responsiveness to multiple notices. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on suspicion and unsubstantiated information in the dissemination note. The Tribunal noted that similar cases involving the sale of investments were decided in favor of the assessee, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the ill-health of the AR. The case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had no international or domestic transactions with related parties during the year, the requirement to obtain a report under Section 92E was not applicable. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was illegal and unsustainable because it was not based on the reason for which the notice was issued. The assessee had clearly stated that no transaction occurred with the mentioned entity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get adequate opportunities to present its case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits after providing the assessee with a proper hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. It was held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the Revenue failed to clearly suggest any exception clause from the CBDT circular. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the addition cannot be made solely on the ground of non-compliance with summons when all necessary documentary evidence regarding identity, creditworthiness, and banking channels was furnished. The assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were undertaken without jurisdiction, particularly as the reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B was done through NFAC prior to the notification of Section 151A and without proper sanction under Section 151. Therefore, the assessment order was invalid.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and the revenue had not clearly specified any applicable exception clause. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 80P are controlled by Section 80AC, which mandates timely filing of returns for claiming such deductions. Since the return was filed late and the delay was not condoned, the disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as there were reasonable grounds for the delay. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-verify the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and other related documents to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO had not conducted proper independent enquiries despite the evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were cryptic and vague, lacking any satisfaction of the AO regarding escaped income. Consequently, the reopening and the assessment framed were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer's file. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer, the consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be deleted. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings if deemed fit.

The tribunal dismissed the disallowance of employees' PF/ESI contribution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, it allowed the deduction for director's residence expenses and directed the AO to allow the Section 80IC deduction, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing, directing the CIT(Appeals) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable and sufficient causes. The issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for want of prosecution due to non-compliance, and this order was not on merit. The Tribunal considered the assessee's contention that the appeal should be restored to the AO to determine whether the amount of Rs. 18,69,28,400/- was received during the year under appeal or in the preceding financial year. In the interest of justice, and considering the submissions, the Tribunal remitted the appeal of the assessee back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to afford an opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The orders passed by the lower authorities were set aside. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition but focused on procedural fairness and the opportunity for the assessee to present its case regarding the timing of the receipt of funds. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the expenditure as application of funds and determine its eligibility under Section 11, providing the assessee with another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction as it was done before the relevant notification conferring jurisdiction was issued. Consequently, the order of the NFAC was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of its purchases and that the Assessing Officer had not dislodged this evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's circumstances. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide evidence, the Tribunal found the assessment potentially bad-in-law due to issues with notice service via email. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, not on merits. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's plea to re-examine the receipt of share capital and premium in the correct financial year, the matter was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued before the approval from the competent authority was communicated to the AO. Therefore, the assessment order is invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the delay and that the delay was due to the assessee's negligence. The condonation petition was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce requisite information before the lower authorities and that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that the weight of the jewellery was below the limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916, which allows for undisclosed jewellery up to certain limits for married individuals. The assessee had also claimed the jewellery was received at the time of marriage, a long-standing event.

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not considered the case on merits and that the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of sales with relevant bills.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all necessary details and evidence regarding the share subscribers, and the Assessing Officer's remand report confirmed the existence and legitimacy of these companies. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal despite these findings was considered contradictory.

The Tribunal held that for the first three properties, the transactions were not simple purchases but involved joint venture agreements, making Section 56(2)(x) inapplicable. For the fourth property, evidence of payments through cheques was presented, indicating the source of investment was not unexplained.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard, emphasizing cooperation in future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the construction of the new residential house was completed within the period stipulated under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 54 as the new flat was allotted in exchange for the old property.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not considered the merits of the case or the documentary evidence. It was also held that the reopening under Section 147 was time-barred as four years had elapsed and the Assessing Officer had acted mechanically without applying his own mind. The alleged entries did not relate to the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the cost aspect of investments as per ICDS and recompute the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, following the decision of a coordinate bench.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to plausible reasons. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order forming the basis of the reassessment was quashed, the consequential reassessment order also has no legal standing. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee should be allowed.