ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition for accommodation entries as the assessee was not the beneficiary. However, it directed the AO to estimate income at 0.15% of the share capital/premium as commission income.

The Tribunal held that the impugned amount represents an outstanding liability for the purchase of shares on credit, not a cash credit received during the year. Therefore, Section 68 is not applicable, and the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and made a claim that was legally correct at the time of filing. Therefore, there was no underreporting of income, and the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission and the documents filed. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as a duplicate without proper verification. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the matter on its merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, consisting only of ledger copies of the assessee's accounts, were not incriminating. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary evidence for the share transactions.

The Tribunal held that the second reopening was invalid as it was based on a 'borrowed satisfaction' and a mere change of opinion, without new material. The addition of ₹1,84,223/- was also partly confirmed by reducing the estimation rate.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary evidence for the share transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bonafide cause for not getting its accounts audited as it genuinely believed that Section 44AB was not applicable due to the absence of commercial business income. The interest income was from 'other sources', not business receipts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reassessment was invalid due to borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary evidence for the share transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed was invalid because the notice under Section 142(1) was not served within the assessment year. Following a coordinate bench decision, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bonafide cause for not getting its accounts audited as it genuinely believed that Section 44AB was not applicable due to the absence of commercial business income. The interest income was from 'other sources', not business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bonafide cause for not getting its accounts audited as it genuinely believed that Section 44AB was not applicable due to the absence of commercial business income. The interest income was from 'other sources', not business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bonafide cause for not getting its accounts audited as it genuinely believed that Section 44AB was not applicable due to the absence of commercial business income. The interest income was from 'other sources', not business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and bonafide cause for not getting its accounts audited as it genuinely believed that Section 44AB was not applicable due to the absence of commercial business income. The interest income was from 'other sources', not business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the NFAC was without jurisdiction. This was because Section 151A, which governs faceless assessment of income escaping assessment, was notified on March 29, 2022, making any assessment proceedings initiated before that date by the NFAC invalid.

The ITAT noted that a co-ordinate bench had already quashed the reopening of assessment and deleted the additions on merits for the same assessment year. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued and forwarded on April 1, 2021, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the consequent assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was also quashed.

The tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the second reopening was invalid as it was based on a 'borrowed satisfaction' and a mere change of opinion, without new material. The addition of ₹1,84,223/- was also partly confirmed by reducing the estimation rate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with notices. For the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) to pass an order on merit after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition cannot be made solely on the ground of non-compliance with summons under Section 131, especially when the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that similar issues concerning the subscribers had been accepted by coordinate benches and upheld by the High Court.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without following the prescribed procedure for conversion to complete scrutiny. The assessment order was quashed as a nullity.

The Tribunal held that the addition cannot be made solely on the ground that the directors of the subscriber companies were not produced. The assessee had provided all necessary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and should not lead to the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C). The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions which held that such technical breaches do not warrant denial of exemption, especially when the assessee substantially fulfills the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal held that a contingent liability is not an income of the assessee and therefore, the addition made by the AO/CPC was erroneous. The CIT(A) also erred in upholding the addition without appreciating the nature of contingent liability.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the AO. The AO was directed to properly verify documents and allow the assessee to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee's letter was recognized by the AO, issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory. As no such notice was issued, the assessment was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee furnished all necessary evidence for the loan transaction and the loan was repaid, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Calcutta High Court and Gujarat High Court.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored both the quantum and penalty appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. The lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without deciding the issues on merit.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, thereby depriving the assessee of a proper response. The consequent penalty order was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be imposed if there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the income-tax return itself. Since the disclosed income was included in the return and accepted without variation, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, consisting only of ledger copies of the assessee's accounts, were not incriminating. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, consisting only of ledger copies of the assessee's accounts, were not incriminating. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, consisting only of ledger copies of the assessee's accounts, were not incriminating. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not justified, and the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal found that some disallowances were made erroneously as payments were within due dates. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of deposit challans and a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be imposed if there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the income-tax return itself. Since the disclosed income was included in the return and accepted without variation, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and made a claim that was legally correct at the time of filing. Therefore, there was no underreporting of income, and the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully disclosed all facts and made a claim that was legally correct at the time of filing. Therefore, there was no underreporting of income, and the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was mechanical and invalid as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Therefore, the penalty notice and the consequent penalty order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicant. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) with directions to hear the assessee on the limitation issue. If a delay is found, the assessee is to file a condonation petition, which the CIT(A) should consider before deciding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and should not lead to the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C). The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions which held that such technical breaches do not warrant denial of exemption, especially when the assessee substantially fulfills the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and should not lead to the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C). The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions which held that such technical breaches do not warrant denial of exemption, especially when the assessee substantially fulfills the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and should not lead to the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 10(23C). The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions which held that such technical breaches do not warrant denial of exemption, especially when the assessee substantially fulfills the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowances were based on presumptions and surmises without any substantive basis or scientific method. Therefore, the disallowances could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that since the shares were purchased in earlier years and duly accounted for, and the assessee had furnished details of the sale and return of advance, the addition under Section 68 was not justified. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where investments accepted in earlier years were not doubted upon sale.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard to substantiate the bank entries.