Direct TaxAO Duty Bound To Dispose Of Assessee's Written Objections To Proposed Re-Assessment By Passing Speaking Order: Calcutta High CourtCase title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal OmprakashCase no.: ITAT/5/2025The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax...
Direct Tax
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13 Kolkata Vs Champalal Omprakash
Case no.: ITAT/5/2025
The Calcutta High Court recently upheld an ITAT order deleting the addition of over ₹4 crore made to the income of an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in reassessment action.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Bivas Pattanayak held that the Assessing Officer had erred in not disposing of the written objection submitted by the assessee against the reopening of the assessment.
Calcutta High Court Upholds Quashing Of ₹7.29 Crore Penalty Imposed On Dissolved HUF
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-9, Kolkata Vs. Chandravadan Desai (HUF)
Case no.: ITAT/274/2024
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the quashing of penalty proceedings initiated against a dissolved Hindu Joint Family. A division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the ITAT order which had relied on a Supreme Court ruling to declare the penalty action void-ab-initio.
The Top Court had in CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited held that notice and/or consequent order issued in the name of a non-existent person renders the entire proceedings and all consequent actions to be a nullity in the eye of law.
Case title: The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 1, Kolkata v. Wise Investment Private Limited
Case no.: ITAT/238/2024
The Calcutta High Court has made it clear that the Delhi High Court decisions in NR Portfolio and Navodaya Castles will hold no value where an assessee-company establishes the identity of its shares subscribers, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transactions.
In CIT v. NR Portfolio Private Limited (2014) and in CITA v. Navodaya Castles Private Limited (2014), the Delhi High Court had held that mere production of incorporation details, PAN Nos. or the fact that third persons or company had filed income tax details in case of a private limited company may not be sufficient when surrounding and attending facts predicate a cover up. These facts indicate and reflect proper paperwork or documentation but genuineness, creditworthiness, identity are deeper and obtrusive.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-1, Kolkata v. Rungta Mines Limited
Case Number: ITAT/215/2024
The Calcutta High Court held that Internal CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method is most appropriate for ALP (Arm's Length Price) determination in captive power transactions.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing issue of whether the Internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method adopted by the assessee was right in determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for power supplied by the assessee's Captive Power Plants (CPPs) to non-eligible units for transfer pricing adjustments.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Kolkata v. Minto Park Estates Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/4/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that mere incorporation of investing companies under the Companies Act is not enough to prove the genuineness of share transactions.
The bench opined that, admittedly, the shares were by way of a private placement. Though the investing companies might have been incorporated under the provisions of the Company's Act, that by itself will not validate the transaction.
Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central - 2, Kolkata v. M/s. Zulu Merchandise Private Limited
Case Number: ITAT/88/2025 (IA NO: GA/2/2025)
The Calcutta High Court held that stock exchange and banking channels cannot mask sham transactions carried out through bogus capital loss claim companies.
Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) observed that “the entire information contained in the investigation report was apprised to the assessee by the assessing officer and thereafter the show cause notices was issued for which the assessee' submitted their reply and in the reply they did not raise any issue that they were unaware about the investigation report but made a vague and unsubstantiated statement stating that the transaction was in the normal course of business.”
Case Title: The West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-54 Kolkata
Case Number: ITAT/36/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that interest earned on surplus lending funds is attributable to banking business, qualifies for 80P deduction under Income Tax Act.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) stated that interest earned by the West Bengal State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. on surplus funds from NABARD lending business eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Case Title: Rajneesh Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)
Case Number: WPO/398/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that the Income Tax Department cannot withhold a refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless it establishes tax liability.
The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that it is true that Section 245 of the said Act authorises the Income Tax Department to set off a refund against remaining tax payable. Unfortunately, in this case, the respondent has not been able to demonstrate that any amount is payable or is due from the assessee. Law does not sanction recovery of tax in the absence of any specific charging statutory provision.
Case Title: Shiv Kumar Saraf v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Case Number: WPO/646/2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be initiated unless incriminating material relating to the assessee is found during a search and both the assessing officers (the Assessing Officer of the searched person as well as the Assessing Officer of the person other than the searched person) record the necessary satisfaction.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that any incriminating material had been found against the assessee in the search and seizure operation.
Case Title: Sandhya Rani Jana and Anr. v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Case Number: F.M.A. 70 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court held that when a victim's income tax return is filed, it is a reliable and authentic basis for assessing income in motor accident claims. The bench granted compensation of Rs. 39 Lakh to the claimants (mother and father) of the victim.
Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury stated that once an Income Tax Return is accepted by the Income Tax Authority, it becomes an authentic document with regard to the income of the victim.
Case Title: Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4) & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 21228 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is impermissible when it is based on the same survey material that the Assessing Officer (AO) has already examined and accepted in earlier proceedings.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that the reassessment proceeding is clearly impermissible…It would be a clear case of “change of opinion”. Indeed, the principle that assessment of a given assessee for a given assessment year cannot be reopened by the relevant Assessing Officer on the ground of change of opinion is usually applied in the case of the same assessee for the same assessment year but there is no reason why such a principle cannot be extended and applied to a case like the one at hand.
Indirect Tax
Service Tax Liability Cannot Be Fastened On Implementation Of Govt Projects: Calcutta High Court
Case title: Commissioner Of Service Tax Kolkata Vs M/S Electrosteel Castings Limited
Case no.: CEXA/56/2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that construction of canals/ pipelines/ conduits to support irrigation, water supply or for sewerage disposal, when provided to the Government, cannot be exigible to service tax.
A division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya relied on two Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to observe, “Even in case of works contract, if the nature of the activities is such that they are excluded from the purview of commercial or industrial construction services, or erection, commissioning or installation services, then they would generally remain excluded from this taxable service as well. These circulars are sufficient indication to hold that when the Government projects are being implemented, the service tax liability cannot be fastened.”
Case Title: Ashok Sharma v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: FMA 136 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that customs department cannot seize the goods if the quantity or weight of the goods is found correct on physical verification.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the quantity or the weight of the goods, which were carried in the vehicle, has been found to be correct by the department on physical verification and there is no discrepancy.
Excise Duty Under Sugar Cess Act Can Be Claimed As CENVAT Credit: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata South, GST Bhawan v. M/s Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CEXA/9/2020
The Calcutta High Court stated that excise duty under sugar tax act can be claimed as CENVAT credit.
The Bench consists of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the issue of whether payment of duty under Sugar Cess Act, 1982 can be claimed as Cenvat Credit when the Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide payment of cess under the Sugar Cess Act, 1982 as not being eligible under Rule 3 of the said Rules.
Case Title: THE CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. VS THE CRICKET ASSOCIATION OF BENGAL & ORS.
Case Number: APO/248/2016 WITH WPO/2662/1996 IA NO: GA/2/2021
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda has held that without framing Regulations or without the budget estimate prescribing the rates at which advertisement tax may be levied by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), computation and imposition of such tax would be arbitrary. It would have no rational basis. It would then be open to KMC to quantify such tax as per its sweet will, which cannot be countenanced under the rule of law.
Case title: Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited & Anr. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Taltala Charge, WBGST & Ors.
Case no.: WPA 3033 OF 2025
Calcutta High Court recently directed the proper officer under the GST Act to consider ordering refund of the unutilised ITC of an Assessee to his personal bank account, as his business was closed and its GST registration stood cancelled.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by a direction of the proper officer, though allowing the refund sanction to the tune of Rs. 68,66,238/- but, directing the amount to be paid to the bank account of the business— Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Limited.
Case Title: Commissioner of Service Tax Kolkata v. M/s Medicare Service (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CEXA/10/2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that an appeal on service classification under 'insurance auxiliary service' not maintainable before the High Court.
Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) was addressing the appeal filed by the department/appellant under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 challenging the order passed by the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal).
Case Title: Tara Lohia Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Anr.
Case Number: WPA 9655 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court stated that writ not maintainable against officer's ITC finding made within jurisdiction.
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury stated that “Though, violation of principles of natural justice, and a challenge on jurisdictional issue can be maintained, such issue must, relate to an exercise of jurisdiction by an authority which it does not have, and not merely an error committed within its jurisdiction.”
Case Title: Cotton Casuals India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPO 1235 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that property tax is a first charge on property and the auction purchaser is liable to pay property tax prior to sale.
The bench stated that where a statutory first charge is created on the property, such as in respect of property tax under Section 232 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the municipal authority is entitled to enforce such charge independently in accordance with the statutory mechanism provided therein. In such a situation, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the IBC and the KMC Act, and, therefore, the overriding effect of Section 238 of the IBC is not attracted.
Case Name: Tata Steel Limited (formerly Tata Steel BSL Limited) vs. UOI
Case No.: WPA 20381 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the disallowance of ₹165 crores of CENVAT credit on steel structures, parts, accessories, and cement as confirmed earlier by the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury, on the issue of abatement of the appeals, dismissed the grounds of challenge relating to (i) abatement of appeals before the CESTAT, and (ii) the Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue after the Corporate Insolvency of the assessee's erstwhile entity, Tata Steel Bhushan Steel Limited. Citing Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Court held that the CESTAT had become functus officio.
Case Title: Multireach Media Private limited & Anr Vs The state of West Bengal and Ors.
Case No: WPA No. 209333 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has held that where an adjudication order under the GST regime is uploaded on the GST Portal only under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab rather than the primary “View Notices and Orders” tab the resulting delay in filing appeal is to be condoned, considering that taxpayers cannot reasonably be expected to check multiple tabs for final orders.
A Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai, while hearing a writ petition filed under the WBGST/CGST Act, directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal on merits by condoning the delay, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹15,000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.
Case Title: Laxmi Ghosh v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 20364 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court has stated that IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) ITC (Input Tax Credit) declared in GSTR-9 can be set off against tax demand if missed in the monthly GSTR-3B.
Justice Om Narayan Rai bench observed that the appellate authority did not justify why the IGST ITC declared in GSTR-9 could not be set off against the tax demand.
Case Detail: Bidyut Autotech Private Limited and another v. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bureau of Investigation, South Bengal (HQ)
The Calcutta High Court in a matter concerning non-disclosure of Cess in monthly return GSTR-3B which came to be rectified by filing annual return in GSTR-09, has set aside appellate order. The High Court has directed the Authority to revisit the matter and consider subsequent rectification in GSTR-09 of initial error of non-disclosure.
In an order dated November 26, 2025 the Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai noted that at the time of finalization of the books of account, Petitioners realized their mistake and disclosed the entire amount of CESS in the annual report filed in form GSTR-9. The Calcutta High Court emphasizing on effect of Form GSTR-9 observed that non-consideration of the aspect that Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the Cess paid remained unavailed would contravene the Constitutional Principles. It was also stated that although Section 44(2) Amendment set a 3-year filing date for annual returns but same was without penalties or prohibition, therefore, late filing cannot be treated as barred.
Case Title: M/s. JJ Traders v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2144 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs) circulars are binding on departmental officers but cannot be used as a protective shield in cases where the genuineness of the transaction or invoices is in doubt.
Justice Om Narayan Rai stated that it cannot be doubted that a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs would be binding on all its officers but at the same time there can also not be any cavil to the proposition that a circular issued by the Board whether instructive or clarificatory or otherwise has to operate within the statutory framework and has to be applied only when there is no doubt raised regarding the genuineness of the consignment and the transaction and the documents are in order.
Case Title: Puspa Furniture Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19155 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that the GST authorities do not have the power under Section 67 of the CGST Act to seal or seize cash. Accordingly, the bench directed the immediate de-sealing of Rs. 24 lakhs.
Justice Om Narayan Rai examined whether the GST authorities have the power to seize cash under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
Case Title: Shyamalmay Paul v. Assistant Commissioner SGST, Siliguri Charge, Siliguri & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2192 of 2025
The Calcutta High Court held that Input Tax Credit (ITC) cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer merely because the supplier's GST registration was cancelled retrospectively.
Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that apart from holding that the invoice dates were after the effective date of cancellation of the registration certificate of the supplier in question, no other ground has been mentioned by the appellate authority as a ground for denial of Input Tax Credit.
Case Title: Shree Shyam Steel Co. v. Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST and Central Excise
Case Number: CEXA 60 OF 2024
The Calcutta High Court held that the law of limitation is not meant to extinguish substantive rights and must be applied with a liberal approach where delay is caused by bona fide conduct.
The bench condoned the delay of 2262 days in filing the CESTAT appeal, holding that the assessee's bona fide pursuit of settlement under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) was a valid ground and that condonation of delay could not be denied on such a basis.
GST | Stereo System In E-Rickshaw An Input, Calcutta High Court Grants Refund To Manufacturer
Case Name: Hooghly Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court, in a matter concerning admissibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for purchase of 'stereo system' to be used in E-rickshaw, has granted Refund claim of Unutilized Input Tax Credit under inverted duty structure amounting to approximately ₹8 lakhs.
The Calcutta High Court was called-upon to decide whether "Stereo System" was an input/ raw material in manufacturing of E-rickshaw covered by HSN-87031090. Also, whether ITC involved in purchase of "stereo system" would be eligible for refund vide clause (ii) of first proviso to Section 54 (3) of the WBGST/CGST Act.
GST | Calcutta High Court Quashes Excess ITC Demand Pertaining To Initial Years Of GST Rollout
Case Name: Soumyendu Bikash Jana vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court has quashed the order passed by Appellate Authority dismissing appeal against Section 73 demand, preliminary, “without appreciating the worth of the documents”.
Justice Om Narayan Rai observed that there was 'total non-consideration of material on record' upon tracing through the paper book as well as relevant documents annexed to the writ petition which were also placed on record before the Appellate Authority (AA).