FIITJEE LIMITED,HAUZKHAS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE

ITA 9101/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s FIITJEE Limited, filed appeals against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2016-17. The assessee is engaged in providing coaching for engineering entrance examinations. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 62,26,88,774/- after making various additions/disallowances. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal. The assessee is now before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's grounds of appeal include challenges to confirmations of additions/disallowances related to revenue recognition, marketing and photocopy expenses, Section 14A, depreciation on goodwill, depreciation on intangible assets, and interest under Sections 234A and 234B.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, after hearing the rival submissions, observed that the Assessing Officer made various additions/disallowances, and the majority were upheld by the CIT(A) primarily on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims with sufficient documentary evidence. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) contended that relevant documents were filed but not considered, and requested another opportunity before the CIT(A). The Revenue's Representative (DR) opposed this, stating the assessee had prior opportunities. Considering the assessee's plea for an additional opportunity to present its case with documentary evidence and to adhere to the principles of natural justice and interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand all the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the CIT(A) without delay, and sufficient opportunity of hearing will be granted. Consequently, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming additions/disallowances amounting to Rs. 62,26,88,774 (mixed question of law and fact, relating to various grounds of appeal). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) confirmed additions/disallowances without appreciating the facts and that documentary evidence was not considered. The assessee sought an opportunity to present further evidence. Revenue's contention: The Revenue opposed the assessee's prayer, stating that the assessee had multiple opportunities before lower authorities which were not availed. 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,67,89,163 by applying a notional percentage of 9.39% on gross receipts, contrary to the assessee's scientific revenue recognition policy as per AS-9 (question of law and fact, relating to Section 143(3) read with Section 147). Assessee's contention: The assessee claimed revenue was recognized scientifically based on course duration and hours spent, in line with AS-9. The assessee also argued that Rs. 27,45,56,502 added to taxable income in AY 2014-15 on account of revenue recognition amounts to double taxation. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 17,19,34,369 on account of marketing and photocopy expenses, without appreciating that the Income Tax Act does not recognize deferred revenue expenditure (question of law, relating to Section 37). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the AO erred in not allowing a deduction of Rs. 10,91,70,047 added to taxable income in AY 2014-15. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 4. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 45,35,097 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D (question of law, relating to Section 14A). Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 5. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,77,30,200 on goodwill generated due to amalgamation (question of law, relating to Section 32). Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 6. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs. 27,60,767 on intangible assets of FIITJEE Edusoft Limited (question of law, relating to Section 32). Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 7. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B (question of law, relating to Sections 234A and 234B). Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 14A,Section 32,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Pratham Gamta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, CIT-DR &, Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta
Hearing: 02.09.2026Pronounced: 30.09.2026

Per Bench:

The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.s’ for short) 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17. 2 ITAs No.9186, 9185, 9184 & 9101/Del/2025

2.

As the facts are identical in all these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order taking ITA No.9101/Del/2025 as a lead case.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That on the facts and c

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →