In the abovementioned matter ITAT remanded the matter to AO after observing that assessee failed to apply under rule 46 A (Additional Evidence) of the IT Rules.
ITAT Kolkata upholds CIT(A)’s decision to delete ₹3.92 crore additions under Section 41(1), ruling no cessation of liabilities in AY 2014–15 for Shreekrishan Goswami.
ITAT Kolkata remands case of Prakash Bhalotia to AO for fresh order, citing lack of opportunity to present evidence in AY 2017–18 case of unexplained cash deposits.
Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF’s appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) rightly deleted addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act since identity and creditworthiness of share purchased duly explained. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Kolkata held that the surcharge is leviable only when the amount of income tax is computed where the total income exceeds Rs.50 lakhs. Here, surcharge is not leviable since income is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Kolkata held that undisclosed commission income on accommodation entries to be added @0.15% instead of 1%. Accordingly, AO directed to compute the rate the commission @0.15% and not 1%.
ITAT Kolkata remands Germinda Pvt. Ltd.’s 2012-13 case to AO for reassessment, citing lack of opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.
ITAT Kolkata dismisses Revenue’s appeal as the tax effect is below the prescribed threshold limit under CBDT Circular 9/2024.
Kaydee Foundation Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Form 10B as a procedural requirement, liable to condonation in certain circumstances where delays were due to inadvertent errors or technical issues.
