ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the issues on merits, grant an opportunity of hearing, and call for a remand report if necessary.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the corporate guarantee fee should be shared jointly by the assessee and its subsidiary. It also concurred that the interest paid on borrowings for advances to subsidiaries was allowable as a business expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

The tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches and the Supreme Court, which supported the assessee's method of valuing power transfer based on SEB tariffs or landed cost. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches and the Supreme Court, which supported the assessee's method of valuing power transfer based on SEB tariffs or landed cost. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches and the Supreme Court, which supported the assessee's method of valuing power transfer based on SEB tariffs or landed cost. Therefore, the transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the write-off of investment in a subsidiary, made for commercial expediency, constituted a business loss allowable under Section 28. The issue of double disallowance was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the write-off of investment in a subsidiary, made for commercial expediency, constituted a business loss allowable under Section 28. The issue of double disallowance was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, as the previous order was passed due to non-compliance without adjudicating the case. The penalty appeal was also set aside as the main quantum appeal was remanded.

The Tribunal held that loan processing fees are not deductible under Section 24(b) as they are not in the nature of interest on borrowed capital used for the acquisition, construction, repair, renewal, or reconstruction of the house property. The loans were taken for other business purposes, with the property as collateral.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the faceless assessment provisions were not notified at the time of assessment. Consequently, the penalty order also lacked legal force.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The assessee company had taken loans from M/s LumpexVincomPvt. Ltd. and two other parties, totaling Rs. 1,40,00,000/- in the current year. The assessee had submitted loan confirmations and the parties had complied with summons under Section 131, confirming the lending of money. The loans were repaid in subsequent years. Crucially, the assessee had also received a loan from the same party in AY 2011-12, and the assessment order for that year under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) did not take an adverse view. The Tribunal noted that the lender was an existing Income Tax payee, and its identity and creditworthiness were proven by ITR copies, PAN numbers, and bank statements. The loan was taken through normal banking channels. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the facts and judicial pronouncements, and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The decision in ITA No. 74/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 75/2024.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the faceless assessment provisions were not notified at the time of assessment. Consequently, the penalty order also lacked legal force.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the loan was a commercial transaction, repaid within a short period with interest, and TDS provisions were complied with. The Tribunal noted that M/s. Tedium Sales Pvt. Ltd. had sufficient net worth and was assessed to income tax.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for the loan transactions, including ITR acknowledgments, audited balance sheets, ledgers, account confirmations, and bank statements of the lending companies. The Tribunal also noted that one of the lending companies confirmed the loan transaction.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, making the entire proceeding void. Section 292BB does not cure a complete absence of notice from the correct authority.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, as the previous order was passed due to non-compliance without adjudicating the case. The penalty appeal was also set aside as the main quantum appeal was remanded.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The assessee company had taken loans from M/s LumpexVincomPvt. Ltd. and two other parties, totaling Rs. 1,40,00,000/- in the current year. The assessee had submitted loan confirmations and the parties had complied with summons under Section 131, confirming the lending of money. The loans were repaid in subsequent years. Crucially, the assessee had also received a loan from the same party in AY 2011-12, and the assessment order for that year under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) did not take an adverse view. The Tribunal noted that the lender was an existing Income Tax payee, and its identity and creditworthiness were proven by ITR copies, PAN numbers, and bank statements. The loan was taken through normal banking channels. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the facts and judicial pronouncements, and therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The decision in ITA No. 74/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 75/2024.

The Tribunal held that when the CIT(A) grants relief based on peak credit theory, which is an estimated figure, levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not legally or factually correct. Therefore, the penalty is deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that interest on investments was eligible for deduction under Section 80P, and provisions for NPAs were also allowable as they were integral to the business. The addition under Section 69A was deleted as the cash deposits were recorded in the books and explained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, finding it unsustainable. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s partial relief on TDS disallowance and confirmed the disallowance of employee PF/ESIC contributions paid after the due date.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits due to non-compliance. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 15-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) as the assessee was prevented from filing in time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing on merits, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal considered the submission that the present appeal was a duplication of a prior appeal that had already been adjudicated. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the current appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' PF/ESIC contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. It also confirmed the disallowance of excess partner remuneration as the revised partnership deed was not produced before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P could only be made during a scrutiny assessment (Section 143(3)) and not during the processing of the return under Section 143(1). This was because the amended provisions allowing such disallowance under Section 143(1)(a)(v) were effective from April 1, 2021, and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not provide sufficient justification for the travelling expenses and the use of cars for business purposes for depreciation claims. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) to uphold the principle of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to be heard, while cautioning the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal condoned the 98-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals), finding that the assessee was prevented from filing within the stipulated time. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remitted the matter back for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in the set-aside proceedings to ensure an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in proving the genuineness of transactions and inconsistencies in the distribution of uniforms. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination of the suppliers and the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in proving the genuineness of transactions and inconsistencies in the distribution of uniforms. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination of the suppliers and the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal noted that while the AO's findings were not directly challenged, the assessee disputed the enhancement of income by the CIT(A) as it went beyond the original assessment. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the discrepancy in purchase values and the cash payments for duties. The CBEC data, along with accepted customs duty payments, indicated the higher value as the actual purchase price.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance under Section 14A was a contentious issue, with conflicting judicial pronouncements. To ensure a fair opportunity for the assessee and proper recomputation, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in proving the genuineness of transactions and inconsistencies in the distribution of uniforms. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination of the suppliers and the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in proving the genuineness of transactions and inconsistencies in the distribution of uniforms. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination of the suppliers and the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal noted deficiencies in proving the genuineness of transactions and inconsistencies in the distribution of uniforms. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for in-depth examination of the suppliers and the genuineness of purchases.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to disprove the genuineness of the loans taken by the assessee, despite multiple opportunities and a failed remand report. The evidence produced by the assessee was not dislodged.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reopening was justified due to new information and that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The addition made by the AO was confirmed.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue's lack of opposition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT found that for AY 2023-24, Form 10BB was required, not Form 10B, and the assessee had filed Form 10BB. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the AO for proper adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the consistent non-compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), including failure to respond to notices and show cause notices. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-pursuance, and the Tribunal had initially confirmed this ex-parte. However, upon recalling its order, the Tribunal observed that documentary evidence had now been filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that these documents required verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the appeal to the file of the AO for adjudication afresh. The AO was directed to hear the assessee and examine the documents filed. The issue regarding the validity of notices under Section 143(2) was implicitly not decided as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 538 days was liable to be condoned on the facts presented and the appeal should have been decided on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 538 days was liable to be condoned on the facts presented and the appeal should have been decided on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the delay of six days ought to have been condoned by the CIT(A) and the appeal should have been decided on merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for disposal on merit.

The Tribunal held that there was no justification for the addition under Section 69A as it amounted to a double addition of the same business profit. The CIT(A) and AO's orders were set aside regarding this addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the PCIT and restored the issues to the file of the PCIT for re-adjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of ₹10,000 and file an affidavit explaining the delay.

The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment, holding that the Assessing Officer relied on borrowed satisfaction and failed to conduct independent inquiries before reopening and making additions. Consequently, the additions made to the assessee's income were deleted.