ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal set aside both the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). Regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, while the reopening was based on tangible information from CGST regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's purchases related to spare parts for the repair and maintenance of dozers, which were given on hire. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that at most, the disallowance could be considered under Section 37(1) of the Act, as the expenses related to repair and maintenance of machinery. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to examine the nature of the claim, the final findings of the CGST Department on the allegation of bogus bills, and whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature. The AO was directed to allow the claim under Section 37(1) read with Section 31 of the Act as per law, given the assessee's claim that the purchases were for spare parts for repair and maintenance and no sales were made out of these purchases. Grounds 4 and 5 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and submissions. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Ld. AO for assessment de novo. The assessee would be provided a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make further submissions. The Tribunal noted that the grounds taken by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes. The reasoning was that a proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee. The specific issue of whether the loan was genuine and whether the lender had the capacity to advance the loan was not decided on merits but was to be re-examined by the AO. The operative direction was to set aside the order and remand the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the factual position, analyzed the pattern of transactions in the bank accounts of the investor companies and the assessee, and found that the funds were routed through banking channels. The CIT(A) observed that the investor companies, despite having negligible revenue or losses, had invested in the assessee's shares at a high premium. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that these transactions appeared to be a 'round tripping' of funds and that the bank accounts acted as a 'highway' for the movement of money to create a façade of genuine transactions. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the mere fact that transactions were through banking channels or that the investor companies were registered with the tax authorities did not automatically validate the genuineness of the credit. The Tribunal ultimately upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, implying that the Revenue had not sufficiently demonstrated the lack of genuineness or the nature of the credit as undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the factual position, analyzed the pattern of transactions in the bank accounts of the investor companies and the assessee, and found that the funds were routed through banking channels. The CIT(A) observed that the investor companies, despite having negligible revenue or losses, had invested in the assessee's shares at a high premium. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that these transactions appeared to be a 'round tripping' of funds and that the bank accounts acted as a 'highway' for the movement of money to create a façade of genuine transactions. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the mere fact that transactions were through banking channels or that the investor companies were registered with the tax authorities did not automatically validate the genuineness of the credit. The Tribunal ultimately upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, implying that the Revenue had not sufficiently demonstrated the lack of genuineness or the nature of the credit as undisclosed income.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, relying on the grounds presented by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court pronouncements. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to comply with the specific and binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had explicitly directed the AO to verify whether the alleged capital gains and deemed rental income were already examined and assessed in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay, and to obtain necessary verification from Shri Veer Krishna Sahay's jurisdictional AO. The AO admittedly did not obtain this verification and proceeded to make additions based on assumptions, stating no response was received from the other jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal noted that Section 144C(10) makes DRP directions binding and Section 144C(13) mandates conformity. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to undertake the mandated verification and his subsequent additions on assumptions constituted a fundamental violation of Section 144C and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after proper verification and compliance with DRP directions. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, relying on the grounds presented by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court pronouncements. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to comply with the specific and binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had explicitly directed the AO to verify whether the alleged capital gains and deemed rental income were already examined and assessed in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay, and to obtain necessary verification from Shri Veer Krishna Sahay's jurisdictional AO. The AO admittedly did not obtain this verification and proceeded to make additions based on assumptions, stating no response was received from the other jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal noted that Section 144C(10) makes DRP directions binding and Section 144C(13) mandates conformity. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to undertake the mandated verification and his subsequent additions on assumptions constituted a fundamental violation of Section 144C and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after proper verification and compliance with DRP directions. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, relying on the grounds presented by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court pronouncements. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to comply with the specific and binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had explicitly directed the AO to verify whether the alleged capital gains and deemed rental income were already examined and assessed in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay, and to obtain necessary verification from Shri Veer Krishna Sahay's jurisdictional AO. The AO admittedly did not obtain this verification and proceeded to make additions based on assumptions, stating no response was received from the other jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal noted that Section 144C(10) makes DRP directions binding and Section 144C(13) mandates conformity. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to undertake the mandated verification and his subsequent additions on assumptions constituted a fundamental violation of Section 144C and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after proper verification and compliance with DRP directions. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.07.2022, for Assessment Year 2014-15, is bad in law and quashed. The reasoning is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarifies the application of TOLA and the new reassessment provisions. The Tribunal noted that the original time limit for issuing the notice had expired. Even with the extensions provided by TOLA, the extended period for issuing the notice under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 expired on 30.06.2021. The facts indicate that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 01.06.2022, the assessee replied on 18.06.2022, leaving a surviving period of only 3 days. Under the fourth proviso to Section 149(1), this period was extended to 7 days, expiring on 25.06.2022. Therefore, the Assessing Officer ought to have issued the notice under Section 148 by 25.06.2022. Since the notice was issued on 29.07.2022, it is beyond the surviving limitation period. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment notices issued beyond the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA are time-barred and liable to be set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed on this legal ground, and subsequent proceedings are declared void.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, respectfully following the judgments of coordinate benches of the ITAT on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals, inferring that VRS opted by employees cannot be termed as retrenchment and does not fall under Section 10(10B) because BSNL is not closed. However, the Tribunal found that the assessees' case was similar to those decided by coordinate benches, which had allowed the exemption under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal observed that the Revenue could not provide any material to counter these judgments, nor did it appeal to a higher forum. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi Development Authority case, stating it was from a different organization. The Tribunal concluded that the Income Tax Department should not collect tax on exempt income as per Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to the Ahmedabad Bench decision in Jayeshkumr Tulsidas Sutaria, which dealt with similar issues, including condoning delay and accepting the appeal. The Tribunal allowed all four appeals filed by the different assessees.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, respectfully following the judgments of coordinate benches of the ITAT on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals, inferring that VRS opted by employees cannot be termed as retrenchment and does not fall under Section 10(10B) because BSNL is not closed. However, the Tribunal found that the assessees' case was similar to those decided by coordinate benches, which had allowed the exemption under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal observed that the Revenue could not provide any material to counter these judgments, nor did it appeal to a higher forum. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi Development Authority case, stating it was from a different organization. The Tribunal concluded that the Income Tax Department should not collect tax on exempt income as per Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to the Ahmedabad Bench decision in Jayeshkumr Tulsidas Sutaria, which dealt with similar issues, including condoning delay and accepting the appeal. The Tribunal allowed all four appeals filed by the different assessees.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, respectfully following the judgments of coordinate benches of the ITAT on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals, inferring that VRS opted by employees cannot be termed as retrenchment and does not fall under Section 10(10B) because BSNL is not closed. However, the Tribunal found that the assessees' case was similar to those decided by coordinate benches, which had allowed the exemption under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal observed that the Revenue could not provide any material to counter these judgments, nor did it appeal to a higher forum. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi Development Authority case, stating it was from a different organization. The Tribunal concluded that the Income Tax Department should not collect tax on exempt income as per Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to the Ahmedabad Bench decision in Jayeshkumr Tulsidas Sutaria, which dealt with similar issues, including condoning delay and accepting the appeal. The Tribunal allowed all four appeals filed by the different assessees.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessees, respectfully following the judgments of coordinate benches of the ITAT on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals, inferring that VRS opted by employees cannot be termed as retrenchment and does not fall under Section 10(10B) because BSNL is not closed. However, the Tribunal found that the assessees' case was similar to those decided by coordinate benches, which had allowed the exemption under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal observed that the Revenue could not provide any material to counter these judgments, nor did it appeal to a higher forum. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on the Delhi Development Authority case, stating it was from a different organization. The Tribunal concluded that the Income Tax Department should not collect tax on exempt income as per Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to the Ahmedabad Bench decision in Jayeshkumr Tulsidas Sutaria, which dealt with similar issues, including condoning delay and accepting the appeal. The Tribunal allowed all four appeals filed by the different assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked for disallowance when TDS has been deducted, even if at a lower rate or under a different provision due to a difference in interpretation. This is based on the binding principle laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal. The court reasoned that a shortfall or difference in rate does not equate to complete failure or non-deduction of TDS. Therefore, the disallowances of Rs. 40,88,250/- and Rs. 16,96,250/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted. Regarding the interest expense, the Tribunal held that interest on delayed trade payments is compensatory and intrinsically linked to business operations, thus directing the deletion of the Rs. 35,045/- addition. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the primary issue was whether Section 194H applied to trade incentives/discounts or payments directly disbursed by the principal (AIRCEL) to retailers, and if the assessee was obligated to deduct TDS. The Tribunal found that AIRCEL directly credited retailers' bank accounts and deducted TDS on the full amount under the assessee's PAN. The assessee only accounted for this on a gross basis for reconciliation with Form 26AS. No real income accrued to the assessee on the retailer's share, nor did the assessee disburse any separate commission payment to establish a principal-agent relationship under Section 194H. Following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. and United Breweries Ltd., where transactions are on a principal-to-principal basis or discounts are given without an agency relationship, Section 194H is not attracted. Since the primary condition for Section 194H (payment of commission/brokerage under a principal-agent relationship by the assessee) was absent, the assessee could not be held in default for non-deduction of TDS. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not survive, neither at 100% nor at the restricted 30% level. The CIT(A) erred in retaining the disallowance of ₹10,99,191/-. The disallowance was deleted. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the primary issue was whether Section 194H applied to trade incentives/discounts or payments directly disbursed by the principal (AIRCEL) to retailers, and if the assessee was obligated to deduct TDS. The Tribunal found that AIRCEL directly credited retailers' bank accounts and deducted TDS on the full amount under the assessee's PAN. The assessee only accounted for this on a gross basis for reconciliation with Form 26AS. No real income accrued to the assessee on the retailer's share, nor did the assessee disburse any separate commission payment to establish a principal-agent relationship under Section 194H. Following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. and United Breweries Ltd., where transactions are on a principal-to-principal basis or discounts are given without an agency relationship, Section 194H is not attracted. Since the primary condition for Section 194H (payment of commission/brokerage under a principal-agent relationship by the assessee) was absent, the assessee could not be held in default for non-deduction of TDS. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could not survive, neither at 100% nor at the restricted 30% level. The CIT(A) erred in retaining the disallowance of ₹10,99,191/-. The disallowance was deleted. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹52,42,900/- under Section 68 could not be sustained. It was an undisputed fact that the loans received from M/s Pandora Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Jajodia Finance Limited were completely refunded by the assessee within FY 2018-19 through proper banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the net worth of the creditor companies was substantial. The assessee had provided ledger confirmations, bank statements evidencing receipt and repayment, audited accounts and income tax returns of the creditors, and lists of directors. The Tribunal relied on the well-settled judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court, which states that where unsecured loans received during the financial year are refunded in full within the same year through account payee banking channels, no addition under Section 68 is warranted. The Tribunal reasoned that when funds flow into the account and flow back to the lender within the same financial year, the transaction neutralizes itself, establishing the bona fide commercial nature. The AO failed to establish any nexus or evidence that the funds refunded to the lenders flowed back to the assessee in cash. In the absence of positive material proving that the source of funds originated from or returned to the assessee's undisclosed coffers, an addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained solely on third-party statements. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both parties and perusing the impugned order, found that the orders of the lower authorities were passed due to the assessee's non-compliance. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal of the assessee back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The principle applied is that an opportunity should be given to the assessee to present their case, especially when previous orders were ex-parte due to non-compliance, to ensure fairness and proper adjudication. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure when TDS has been deducted, even if at a lower rate or under a different section due to a difference in interpretation. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. S. K. Tekriwal, the Tribunal reasoned that a shortfall or difference in deduction rate does not equate to complete failure or non-deduction. Therefore, the disallowances of Rs. 40,88,250/- and Rs. 16,96,250/- made under Section 40(a)(ia) were deleted. Regarding the interest expense, the Tribunal held that interest on delayed trade payments is compensatory and intrinsically linked to business operations. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 35,045/- was also directed to be deleted. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced substantial documentary evidence, including a tax audit report, audited accounts, cash book, ledger, WBVAT returns, denomination-wise details of SBN deposits with sources, names and addresses of 670 buyers of cash sales during demonetization, bank statements, and replies to notices under Section 133(6) from banks and service providers. The Tribunal noted that there were no adverse findings on the WBVAT returns, Section 133(6) replies, buyer details, or the tax audit report. The Tribunal relied on its own decisions in ITO v. Sanhati Infocom Services Pvt. Ltd. and other cases, as well as the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. CIT, which held that if cash deposits are out of cash available in the books of account, no adverse view can be taken. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had duly explained the source of cash deposits and that the addition made under Section 69A was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, relying on the grounds presented by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court pronouncements. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to comply with the specific and binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had explicitly directed the AO to verify whether the alleged capital gains and deemed rental income were already examined and assessed in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay, and to obtain necessary verification from Shri Veer Krishna Sahay's jurisdictional AO. The AO admittedly did not obtain this verification and proceeded to make additions based on assumptions, stating no response was received from the other jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal noted that Section 144C(10) makes DRP directions binding and Section 144C(13) mandates conformity. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to undertake the mandated verification and his subsequent additions on assumptions constituted a fundamental violation of Section 144C and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after proper verification and compliance with DRP directions. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, relying on the grounds presented by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court pronouncements. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had failed to comply with the specific and binding directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had explicitly directed the AO to verify whether the alleged capital gains and deemed rental income were already examined and assessed in the hands of Shri Veer Krishna Sahay, and to obtain necessary verification from Shri Veer Krishna Sahay's jurisdictional AO. The AO admittedly did not obtain this verification and proceeded to make additions based on assumptions, stating no response was received from the other jurisdictional AO. The Tribunal noted that Section 144C(10) makes DRP directions binding and Section 144C(13) mandates conformity. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to undertake the mandated verification and his subsequent additions on assumptions constituted a fundamental violation of Section 144C and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after proper verification and compliance with DRP directions. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute concerned the determination of the fair market value (FMV) of the property. The AO had made an addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the difference between the stamp duty value and the assessee's offered value. The assessee's contention that the FMV should be considered as of the agreement date (July 22, 2011), when part payment was made via cheque, was not accepted by the AO. The Tribunal observed that the AO had made the addition without referring the matter to the DVO. It held that if there was a dispute regarding the value determined by the assessee and the stamp duty value adopted by the Sub-Registrar, the matter should have been referred to the DVO for correct determination of the FMV as per Section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for determining the correct FMV as of the agreement date. The assessee was directed to produce relevant evidence of payment by cheque on the agreement date. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT. The AO was directed to refer the matter to the DVO for determining the correct FMV and pass a decision accordingly after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The issue regarding the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- for interest paid on loan was also implicitly remitted as part of the overall remittance for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and other supporting documents, to explain the nature and source of the cash credits. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not properly appreciated the evidence placed on record by the assessee and had made the addition based on assumptions and presumptions. The ratio decidendi of the decision is that once the assessee provides satisfactory explanation and evidence for cash credits, the onus shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise, and if the Revenue fails to do so, the addition cannot be sustained. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay and lack of sufficient cause for condonation, without examining the merits of the exemption claim. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's case was similar to that decided by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Harish Kumar vs. ITO, where compensation under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal also referred to a series of other judgments from various coordinate benches that supported the assessee's claim for exemption on similar facts. Therefore, respectfully following these judgments, the Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the exemption under Section 10(10B) and consequently entitled to a refund of the TDS deducted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and allowed the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures totaling ₹1,06,46,352/- for AY 2019-20 is unfair and cannot be sustained, especially on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that these expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the AO had made ad-hoc disallowances without assigning reasons. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that parties should generally be held to earlier pronouncements unless there's a new ground or material change in facts. Regarding the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment. It held that the AO could not make an addition of ₹35,00,000/- under Section 68 when the reasons recorded for reopening were based on an alleged accommodation entry of ₹10,25,00,000/- which was not added. The Tribunal relied on decisions like ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. and M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. The addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan for AY 2013-14 was also set aside, directing the AO to delete the addition, as a similar issue was allowed in a previous appeal. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the appeals were allowed on legal issues.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and liable to be quashed on two primary grounds. Firstly, regarding the validity of the notice under section 148, the Tribunal found that the approval for reopening was obtained from the PCIT-1, Kolkata. However, since the reopening was initiated after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2017-18), the approval ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or a higher specified authority, as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval from the PCIT was thus invalid, rendering the notice under section 148 and the consequent assessment void, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the notice under section 148 by intimating that the return filed under section 139(1) should be treated as the return in response to the section 148 notice. In such a scenario, it was mandatory for the AO to issue a notice under section 143(2), which was not done. This omission rendered the assessment order invalid, following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT v. S.G. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. Regarding the additions under section 56(2)(vii)(b), the Tribunal held that the transaction of purchase was completed in the financial year 2012-13 (AY 2013-14) when the entire consideration was paid and possession was taken. Since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) became effective from AY 2014-15, they were not applicable to the instant assessment year. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision in Bajrang Lal Naredi v. ITO to delete the addition. Consequently, all grounds challenging the assessment order were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures totaling ₹1,06,46,352/- for AY 2019-20 is unfair and cannot be sustained, especially on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that these expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the AO had made ad-hoc disallowances without assigning reasons. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that parties should generally be held to earlier pronouncements unless there's a new ground or material change in facts. Regarding the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment. It held that the AO could not make an addition of ₹35,00,000/- under Section 68 when the reasons recorded for reopening were based on an alleged accommodation entry of ₹10,25,00,000/- which was not added. The Tribunal relied on decisions like ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. and M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. The addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan for AY 2013-14 was also set aside, directing the AO to delete the addition, as a similar issue was allowed in a previous appeal. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the appeals were allowed on legal issues.

The Tribunal held that the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures was unfair and unsustainable, particularly on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that the expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without assigning any reasons. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that parties should generally be held to the same opinion in subsequent years if the facts and law remain the same, unless there's a valid reason to deviate. Therefore, the disallowances were deleted. Regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 147, the Tribunal found it to be bad in law. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 147, as no assessment was framed under Section 143(3) and the AO had not recorded failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions for items of income not forming the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. The addition of ₹35,00,000/- under Section 68 was quashed on this ground, relying on decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. The reopening proceedings and consequent assessment were quashed. Concerning the addition of ₹25,00,000/- under Section 68 for unsecured loans, the Tribunal noted that this issue was similar to an issue decided in a previous appeal (ITA No. 1558/KOL/2026 for AY 2015-16) where the assessee's appeal was allowed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the appeals were allowed on legal issues.

The Tribunal held that the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures was unfair and unsustainable, particularly on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that the expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the disallowances were made on an ad-hoc basis without assigning any reasons. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that parties should generally be held to the same opinion in subsequent years if the facts and law remain the same, unless there's a valid reason to deviate. Therefore, the disallowances were deleted. Regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 147, the Tribunal found it to be bad in law. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 147, as no assessment was framed under Section 143(3) and the AO had not recorded failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions for items of income not forming the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening. The addition of ₹35,00,000/- under Section 68 was quashed on this ground, relying on decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. The reopening proceedings and consequent assessment were quashed. Concerning the addition of ₹25,00,000/- under Section 68 for unsecured loans, the Tribunal noted that this issue was similar to an issue decided in a previous appeal (ITA No. 1558/KOL/2026 for AY 2015-16) where the assessee's appeal was allowed. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the appeals were allowed on legal issues.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly considering the findings of the remand reports. The Tribunal noted that the AO, in the first remand report, stated that summons under Section 131 were complied with by the directors of the subscriber companies, and their statements were recorded. The directors explained the source of funds for the share application money. The second remand report also indicated that the enquiry letters under Section 133(6) were fully replied to with all necessary evidences. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) reproduced the remand reports in his order but did not give any cognizance to them, relying instead on generalized allegations and the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on the non-appearance of directors was contradicted by the findings in the remand reports. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to re-examine the issue in light of the remand reports and the evidence on record, including the statements of the directors and the replies to Section 133(6) notices. The addition was deleted, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the AO rejected the books of account without pointing out specific defects or deficiencies. The reasons cited by the AO were vague and ambiguous. The Ld. CIT(A) had comprehensively dealt with the issue and rightly held that the rejection was not sustainable in law without a careful study of the book results and supporting material evidence. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO's estimation of revenue was vague and lacked proper verification. On the second issue, the Tribunal found that the addition made by the AO was without any basis and based on presumptions and surmises. The Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition after a detailed analysis, concluding it was made on surmise. Consequently, both grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initially issued notices under Section 133(6) to the share subscribers, who responded with details and evidence. Crucially, during the appellate proceedings, two remand reports were called for. The first remand report, dated November 30, 2015, indicated that summons under Section 131 were issued to the directors of the eleven share subscriber companies, and in compliance, directors Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bagla and Mr. Sunil Kumar Khemka appeared and their statements were recorded. They explained the source of funds for the share application money. The second remand report also addressed the issue. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had reproduced these remand reports in his order but failed to give them due cognizance. The CIT(A)'s decision was based on the AO's assessment order, which was superseded by the findings in the remand reports. The Tribunal found that the directors' appearance and explanation regarding the source of funds, as recorded in the remand reports, satisfied the conditions for establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initially issued notices under Section 133(6) to the share subscribers, who responded with details and evidence. Crucially, during the appellate proceedings, two remand reports were called for. The first remand report, dated November 30, 2015, indicated that summons under Section 131 were issued to the directors of the eleven share subscriber companies, and in compliance, directors Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bagla and Mr. Sunil Kumar Khemka appeared and their statements were recorded. They explained the source of funds for the share application money. The second remand report also addressed the issue. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had reproduced these remand reports in his order but failed to give them due cognizance. The CIT(A)'s decision was based on the AO's assessment order, which was superseded by the findings in the remand reports. The Tribunal found that the directors' appearance and explanation regarding the source of funds, as recorded in the remand reports, satisfied the conditions for establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initially issued notices under Section 133(6) to the share subscribers, who responded with details and evidence. Crucially, during the appellate proceedings, two remand reports were called for. The first remand report, dated November 30, 2015, indicated that summons under Section 131 were issued to the directors of the eleven share subscriber companies, and in compliance, directors Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bagla and Mr. Sunil Kumar Khemka appeared and their statements were recorded. They explained the source of funds for the share application money. The second remand report also addressed the issue. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had reproduced these remand reports in his order but failed to give them due cognizance. The CIT(A)'s decision was based on the AO's assessment order, which was superseded by the findings in the remand reports. The Tribunal found that the directors' appearance and explanation regarding the source of funds, as recorded in the remand reports, satisfied the conditions for establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initially issued notices under Section 133(6) to the share subscribers, who responded with details and evidence. Crucially, during the appellate proceedings, two remand reports were called for. The first remand report, dated November 30, 2015, indicated that summons under Section 131 were issued to the directors of the eleven share subscriber companies, and in compliance, directors Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bagla and Mr. Sunil Kumar Khemka appeared and their statements were recorded. They explained the source of funds for the share application money. The second remand report also addressed the issue. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had reproduced these remand reports in his order but failed to give them due cognizance. The CIT(A)'s decision was based on the AO's assessment order, which was superseded by the findings in the remand reports. The Tribunal found that the directors' appearance and explanation regarding the source of funds, as recorded in the remand reports, satisfied the conditions for establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures totaling ₹1,06,46,352/- for AY 2019-20 is unfair and cannot be sustained, especially on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that these expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the AO had made ad-hoc disallowances without assigning reasons. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that parties should generally be held to earlier pronouncements unless there's a new ground or material change in facts. Regarding the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment. It held that the AO could not make an addition of ₹35,00,000/- under Section 68 when the reasons recorded for reopening were based on an alleged accommodation entry of ₹10,25,00,000/- which was not added. The Tribunal relied on decisions like ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. and M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. The addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan for AY 2013-14 was also set aside, directing the AO to delete the addition, as a similar issue was allowed in a previous appeal. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the appeals were allowed on legal issues.

The Tribunal held that the confirmation of disallowances of expenditures totaling ₹1,06,46,352/- for AY 2019-20 is unfair and cannot be sustained, especially on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that these expenditures were regularly incurred and allowed in earlier and subsequent assessment years, and the AO had made ad-hoc disallowances without assigning reasons. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8 vs. Quest Investment Advisors (P.) Ltd. and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that parties should generally be held to earlier pronouncements unless there's a new ground or material change in facts. Regarding the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent assessment. It held that the AO could not make an addition of ₹35,00,000/- under Section 68 when the reasons recorded for reopening were based on an alleged accommodation entry of ₹10,25,00,000/- which was not added. The Tribunal relied on decisions like ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. and M/s. Infinity InfoTech Parks Ltd. The addition of ₹25,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan for AY 2013-14 was also set aside, directing the AO to delete the addition, as a similar issue was allowed in a previous appeal. The grounds raised on merits were left undecided as the appeals were allowed on legal issues.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹69,76,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had initially issued notices under Section 133(6) to the share subscribers, who responded with details and evidence. Crucially, during the appellate proceedings, two remand reports were called for. The first remand report, dated November 30, 2015, indicated that summons under Section 131 were issued to the directors of the eleven share subscriber companies, and in compliance, directors Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bagla and Mr. Sunil Kumar Khemka appeared and their statements were recorded. They explained the source of funds for the share application money. The second remand report also addressed the issue. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had reproduced these remand reports in his order but failed to give them due cognizance. The CIT(A)'s decision was based on the AO's assessment order, which was superseded by the findings in the remand reports. The Tribunal found that the directors' appearance and explanation regarding the source of funds, as recorded in the remand reports, satisfied the conditions for establishing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years, the Tribunal found that the assessment was originally framed under Section 143(3). As per the First Proviso to Section 147, reassessment beyond four years is permissible only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not contain any such finding of failure by the assessee. Therefore, the reassessment was held to be null and void, bad in law, and rightly quashed by the CIT(A). This decision was based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. ([2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC)). Concerning the additions under Section 69A, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions. The Tribunal noted that the amounts received as refunds or loans were duly recorded in the audited books of account and supported by necessary documentation like loan confirmations and repayment details. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated these factual aspects, and the additions were deleted as the transactions were recorded and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. Regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years, the Tribunal found that the assessment was originally framed under Section 143(3). As per the First Proviso to Section 147, reassessment beyond four years is permissible only if there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not contain any such finding of failure by the assessee. Therefore, the reassessment was held to be null and void, bad in law, and rightly quashed by the CIT(A). This decision was based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT vs. CEAT Ltd. ([2023] 146 taxmann.com 108(SC)). Concerning the additions under Section 69A, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions. The Tribunal noted that the amounts received as refunds or loans were duly recorded in the audited books of account and supported by necessary documentation like loan confirmations and repayment details. The CIT(A) had correctly appreciated these factual aspects, and the additions were deleted as the transactions were recorded and supported by evidence.