What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that refunds of indirect taxes do not constitute taxable income as per established CBDT circulars. The appeal was also dismissed due to not meeting the prescribed tax effect threshold.

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition of Rs. 10.80 crore made on account of a GST refund. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, relying on a CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether a GST refund constitutes taxable income and if the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition based on a CBDT circular.

DCIT vs Noon E-Commerce India Private… | s.143(1) | ITAT Delhi 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

Hearing: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8337/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Noon E-Commerce India Circle 16(1), Private Limited, 419, 4th Floor, C.R.Building, IP Second Floor, 6A IDC, Estate, New Delhi- 02 Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Sector-16, Gurgaon- 122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCL3442K Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Bhopal Singh, CIT DR

Date of Hearing: 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 29.06.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal ITA No. 8337/Del/2025 for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl. JCIT (A)-4, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Mumbai’s order dated 07.10.2025, passed in DIN & order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081520480(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’); respectively.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

This Revenue’s appeal ITA No. 8337/Del/2025 raises the following substantive grounds:

“1. whether in facts and circumstances of the Case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10.80 crore made on account of GST refund, without verifying the complete facts of the case?

Whether in facts and circumstances of the Case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of GST refund by merely relying on Circular 35D dated 29.11.1966 without due verification?

The appellant craves leave to alter, add, or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.”

We next notice that the learned CIT(A) has accepted the assessee’s contentions in his learned lower appellate order; reading as under:

2 | P a g e

3 | P a g e

4 | P a g e

5 | P a g e

6 | P a g e

The Revenue vehemently reiterates its sole substantive ground that the learned CIT(A) above extracted detailed discussion has erred in law and on facts in holding the impugned GST refund as not forming the assessee’s taxable income. He could hardly dispute that the CIT(A) has gone by the CBDT’s circular itself (supra) settling the issue long back that refund of such indirect taxes or duties does not constitute income taxable under the provisions of the Act. This is further coupled with fact that the relevant GST amount has been found to be that of Rs. 1,08,18,850/- than Rs. 10,80,18,150/-, claimed at its behest. We thus conclude that not only on merits the Revenue has no case fact also as in instant appeal carries lower than the prescribed tax effect of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT’s landmark circular 09/2024, dated 17.09.2024. We thus reject its instant appeal both on merits as well as in light of the CBDT’s tax effect in very terms.

7 | P a g e

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in open court on 29.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22.09.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

8 | P a g e

DCIT CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. NOON E-COMMERCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments