ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction as the issuing officer did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order was also held to be bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's addition was based on surmises and conjectures without concrete evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in treating the amount as trading receipts and taxing only the profit element.

The Tribunal found that the expenses were incurred for organizing seminars and events to promote business, which is a common practice in the assessee's line of work. The Tribunal noted that similar expenses were incurred in subsequent years in the same ratio.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal but ultimately rejected the assessee's plea regarding the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction, citing Section 124(3)(a) of the Income Tax Act. However, due to a procedural defect in issuing the notice, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee was directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were indeed bogus and not substantiated by the assessee. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal ruled that the entire amount of bogus purchases is liable to be treated as income.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be disallowed solely based on the statement of an individual who was not cross-examined, especially when the assessee's books of account were not rejected and sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be disallowed solely based on the statement of an individual who was not cross-examined, especially when the assessee's books of account were not rejected and sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be disallowed solely based on the statement of an individual who was not cross-examined, especially when the assessee's books of account were not rejected and sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be disallowed solely based on the statement of an individual who was not cross-examined, especially when the assessee's books of account were not rejected and sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the transaction was a regular business transaction of selling flats. The assessee was not obligated to justify the source of funds of its customer, and the non-attendance of summons by the customer did not adversely affect the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's return filed after the time granted in the Section 148 notice was invalid. It also noted that the assessee had previously accepted that a notice under Section 143(2) was issued, contradicting a later affidavit. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments regarding the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and the disposal of objections.

The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be disallowed solely based on the statement of an individual who was not allowed to be cross-examined, especially when the assessee had produced bills, vouchers, proof of payment, and books of account, and the corresponding sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the purchases could not be disallowed solely based on the statement of an individual who was not cross-examined, especially when the assessee's books of account were not rejected and sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 in the name of a non-existent entity is bad in law. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on such a notice is invalid and quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine sales. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to point out specific discrepancies and that the addition would lead to double taxation.

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be bona fide and sufficient. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by an incompetent authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT) as the reassessment was initiated beyond three years. Consequently, the notice and the assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to properly appreciate the source of cash deposits, especially since the assessee's wife, engaged in business and filing her return, had responded to the AO's notice. The Tribunal also found fault with the reopening process and the approval granted for it.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 227 days and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the case was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment was issued beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, rendering the assessment invalid. It also found that the addition made by the AO was based on surmises and conjectures, without substantive basis.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present its case.

For the first appeal, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to correct the income assessment. For the second appeal, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal.

The tribunal held that for capital expenditure on scientific research incurred after March 31, 1967, 100% deduction is allowable. The tribunal dismissed the ground related to CPC's adjustment as it did not emanate from the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the discrepancy arose due to rounding off by the valuer and that the assessee had a bona fide explanation. Since the net result was a loss and the transactions were not doubted, the penalty was not liable to be imposed.

For the first appeal, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to correct the income assessment. For the second appeal, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal.

The Tribunal found that the bank transaction slips confirmed the remittances, and the discrepancy was due to a mistake in Form 15CC. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to furnish all required documents.

The ITAT found that substantial justice would be served by restoring the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues on merits after giving the assessee a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and genuine, especially as the Revenue did not object. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal in limine without deciding it on merits. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s action was contrary to the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates deciding the appeal after affording an adequate opportunity of being heard. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal did not decide any issue on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that a temporary lull in business activity does not constitute cessation. Rental income derived from business assets leased out during an idle period should be treated as business income.

The Tribunal held that while adjustments based on Form 26AS are permissible, the assessee should be allowed to prove co-ownership and the inclusion of their shares in other co-owners' returns. The matter was remanded for verification of these claims.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it was in a standard format without specifying the relevant limb of Section 271AAB under which the penalty was proposed. This deprived the assessee of a proper opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal found that the bank transaction slips confirmed the remittances, and the discrepancy was due to a mistake in Form 15CC. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to transactions of purchase of stock-in-trade in the ordinary course of business. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently treated the property as stock-in-trade, as reflected in its financial statements where it was recorded under 'Other Current Assets' and not 'Capital Assets'. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of its co-ordinate benches in *Ketan Himatlal Mehta vs. DCIT* and *Commercial Development Corporation Vs. NFAC/ITO Ward 24(1)(1)*, which held that Section 56(2)(x) cannot be invoked for stock-in-trade. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) were introduced by the Finance Act, 2009, effective from 01.10.2009, whereas the purchase transaction of the land in question was recorded in the assessee's books as stock-in-trade in the assessment year corresponding to the previous year 1977-78. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was set aside. The issue was remitted back to the AO to verify if the asset was held as stock-in-trade, with a clarification that no addition would be made under Section 56(2)(x) if it was indeed stock-in-trade. Other contentions raised by the assessee were not adjudicated as the issue was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee complied with the Section 148 notice is a fatal defect. The assessment framed without this mandatory notice is invalid and a nullity.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the period of limitation. The relaxation granted by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) was not available for the assessment year 2015-16, as per Supreme Court and High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the 6-day delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment de novo.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Since the assessee substantially complied by uploading the report before the due date and faced technical glitches, the exemption could not be denied.

The Tribunal, noting the lack of proper compliance before both the AO and CIT(A), decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO for reassessment de novo, with a direction to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,09,00,000/- made under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition based on post-search inquiries without referring to any specific incriminating documents unearthed during the search and seizure operation. The CIT(A) had observed that while documents were seized, the assessment order did not mention them, and the entire addition was based on post-search inquiries. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which held that in cases of unabated assessments where no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess based on other materials. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The issue of whether the assessment year 2015-16 was unabated was considered, and the Tribunal noted the AO's failure to provide incriminating documents. The Tribunal did not specifically address the Revenue's argument regarding the entry operator's statement or the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 05/2024.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the cash deposits represented sales from the business and were duly recorded in the books of accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,09,00,000/- made under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition based on post-search inquiries without referring to any specific incriminating documents unearthed during the search and seizure operation. The CIT(A) had observed that while documents were seized, the assessment order did not mention them, and the entire addition was based on post-search inquiries. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which held that in cases of unabated assessments where no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess based on other materials. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The issue of whether the assessment year 2015-16 was unabated was considered, and the Tribunal noted the AO's failure to provide incriminating documents. The Tribunal did not specifically address the Revenue's argument regarding the entry operator's statement or the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 05/2024.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,09,00,000/- made under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition based on post-search inquiries without referring to any specific incriminating documents unearthed during the search and seizure operation. The CIT(A) had observed that while documents were seized, the assessment order did not mention them, and the entire addition was based on post-search inquiries. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., which held that in cases of unabated assessments where no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess based on other materials. The Tribunal found no illegality in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The issue of whether the assessment year 2015-16 was unabated was considered, and the Tribunal noted the AO's failure to provide incriminating documents. The Tribunal did not specifically address the Revenue's argument regarding the entry operator's statement or the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 05/2024.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order was void ab initio, any consequential order passed under Section 263 was also invalid. Therefore, the assessee's cross-objection was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the assessee's reconciliation satisfactory. It was held that GST records cannot override audited financials for income tax computation, and statutory levies collected on behalf of the government are not taxable turnover.

The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously allowed the interest income and deleted the addition. Consequently, the penalty initiated by the AO was deleted.