ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the assessee was not provided with an opportunity for cross-examination of third parties and the information gathered was not properly confronted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case on merit, as the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentation regarding the purchasers' identity, creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions which held that sale proceeds of long-held investments fall outside the purview of Section 68.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's negligence but granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an old settler of Sikkim domiciled before April 26, 1975, is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAA). The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore set aside.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the capital introductions were fully explained by the partner's cash book, past savings, and bank withdrawals. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in its well-reasoned decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing two appeals and restored them to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The third appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-adjudicate the registration applications after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-adjudicate the registration applications after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the assessee was not provided with an opportunity for cross-examination of third parties and the information gathered was not properly confronted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's negligence but granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. However, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Swati Bajaj, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the assessee was not provided with an opportunity for cross-examination of third parties and the information gathered was not properly confronted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the assessee was not provided with an opportunity for cross-examination of third parties and the information gathered was not properly confronted. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's negligence but granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing two appeals and restored them to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The third appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing two appeals and restored them to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The third appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and relevant Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal found that the sole reason for disallowance under Section 40A(3) was the cash payment of Rs. 1,33,21,362/- (as per assessee's submission) for wheat purchases exceeding the prescribed limit. The assessee had submitted its purchase register, reconciled with books, and cash book reconciled with bank statements. The assessee also highlighted discrepancies, noting that the purchase register did not contain entries for purchases from Sri Anil Ghosh and Sri Ashish Ghosh, whose names were mentioned by the AO. The CIT(A) had held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to disprove the AO's observations and failed to substantiate the identity of the payees. Considering the facts, submissions, and for the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and proper examination of the documents filed by the assessee. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was remitted back to the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that expenses for filing returns and professional charges were revenue in nature and allowable. Interest on late VAT payment was compensatory and deductible. Ad hoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses without rejecting books of account was not sustainable. Commission payments were also allowed as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to the non-supply of material along with the show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessment framed was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for the AO to assume jurisdiction for assessment. An assessment framed without this notice is invalid and a nullity in the eyes of the law.

The Tribunal held that the share application money received in earlier years, and reflected in audited balance sheets, cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit in the current year. The allotment of shares was an adjustment of previously received funds.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid because it was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was also deemed invalid and quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit and did not fall under any exceptions, making the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding the source of deposits and reconciliation of accounts was not appropriately addressed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions of Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for the share subscribers and their sources. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the assessee under Section 153C were initiated based on the statement of Shri Dinesh Kumar Tawania recorded on July 8, 2021. It noted that the search on Shri Tawania was conducted on March 5, 2021, and admittedly, no incriminating material relating to the assessee was found during that search. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in MANI Square Ltd. v. ACIT, which held that a statement recorded under Section 132(1) or 131 of the Act cannot be treated as incriminating material for the purpose of Section 153C. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. Regarding the applicability of Section 153C(3) for searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021, the Tribunal, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and the Madras High Court in Harigovind vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, held that the date of search for the purpose of Section 153C in the case of other persons is the date of handing over of the seized material to the AO of the other person. In this case, the statement recorded on July 8, 2021, which is after April 1, 2021, was considered the relevant date for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Consequently, the provisions of Section 153C were held to be not applicable. The notice issued under Section 153C and the consequent assessment were quashed. The issue for AY 2016-17 was similar and decided accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the assessee under Section 153C were initiated based on the statement of Shri Dinesh Kumar Tawania recorded on July 8, 2021. It noted that the search on Shri Tawania was conducted on March 5, 2021, and admittedly, no incriminating material relating to the assessee was found during that search. The Tribunal relied on the decision of a coordinate bench in MANI Square Ltd. v. ACIT, which held that a statement recorded under Section 132(1) or 131 of the Act cannot be treated as incriminating material for the purpose of Section 153C. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. Regarding the applicability of Section 153C(3) for searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021, the Tribunal, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh and the Madras High Court in Harigovind vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, held that the date of search for the purpose of Section 153C in the case of other persons is the date of handing over of the seized material to the AO of the other person. In this case, the statement recorded on July 8, 2021, which is after April 1, 2021, was considered the relevant date for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Consequently, the provisions of Section 153C were held to be not applicable. The notice issued under Section 153C and the consequent assessment were quashed. The issue for AY 2016-17 was similar and decided accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. It restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee gets a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee raised significant grounds regarding the non-service of notices and the nature of income, which warranted a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that investment in Fixed Deposits (FDs) qualifies as an investment in a capital asset under Section 11(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal relied on various High Court decisions and a CBDT circular which acknowledge bank deposits as capital assets.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that a similar issue had been adjudicated in a previous appeal for the same assessment year. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence for the loan, which was disbursed through banking channels, carried interest, and was repaid. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision where similar additions were deleted.

The Tribunal considered the submission and the petition filed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties involved. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the unsecured loans and their repayment. The AO failed to show any defects in the evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on stale information already available to the AO during the earlier assessment, constituting a 'change of opinion'. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147/148, as incriminating documents were found at a third party's premises.

The Tribunal held that capital introduced by a partner cannot be taxed in the hands of the firm when the partner is identifiable and genuine. The Tribunal found that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the partner M/s Saztra Commercial Pvt. Ltd. were not questioned, and the transaction was through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income sustained purely on an estimate basis, especially when there are no positive facts or findings to support the addition. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice and conduct assessment proceedings due to pecuniary limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The assessment order was therefore quashed as a nullity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order and did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the execution of a registered development agreement coupled with possession transfer amounts to a 'transfer' under the Income Tax Act, attracting capital gains tax in the year of transfer. The assessee's claim that she did not sell the property later was deemed immaterial for computing capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rendering the assessment order invalid. Therefore, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was quashed.

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte. To serve the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing after providing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal and that the reasons provided were vague and unsupported by an affidavit. Therefore, the delay could not be condoned.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh disposal. It directed the CIT(A) to consider the capital account entries and the purpose of earlier withdrawals, while also requiring the assessee to provide a cash flow statement and justify the discrepancy in cash withdrawal and deposit.