ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention and, in the interest of justice, remitted both appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, instructing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) proceedings.

Following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2024, is not accepted by the Revenue for any reason.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal because the tax effect involved was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, rendering the appeal non-maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had issued notices under Section 133(6) and received confirmations from the parties. These parties had offered receipts to tax, and TDS was deducted by the assessee. Considering the specialized nature of the assessee's business and the services provided, the CIT(A)'s finding of genuineness was confirmed as the Revenue failed to controvert these facts.

Following the assessee's submission of having opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted liberty to the assessee to seek restoration of the appeal by filing a miscellaneous application, should their declaration under Section 4 of the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme Act not be accepted by the Revenue.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to resolve the matter through the DTVSVS 2024. Consequently, noting the assessee's choice, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application, noting that the assessee claimed non-receipt of electronic notices and thus being denied adequate opportunity of hearing. The matter has been restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision in accordance with law, and the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Following a precedent from the Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue authorities.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to apply for restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the scheme is not accepted by the Revenue, aligning with a precedent set by the Madras High Court.

The Tribunal found cogency in the assessees' contention regarding non-appearance. It remitted all 8 appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties receive adequate opportunity of being heard and directing the assessees to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that an order under Section 163 must be passed before issuing a notice under Section 148 to an assessee treated as a representative assessee. Furthermore, a reassessment framed on a "protective" basis without a substantive assessment is not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not hit by Section 2(15) and thus eligible for exemption. It also ruled that infrastructure and FAR funds, as well as contributions to Awas Bandhu, were allowable as application of income.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid because it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and was received by the Assessing Officer after the assessment orders were passed. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not hit by Section 2(15) and thus eligible for exemption. It also ruled that infrastructure and FAR funds, as well as contributions to Awas Bandhu, were allowable as application of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were not hit by Section 2(15) and thus eligible for exemption. It also ruled that infrastructure and FAR funds, as well as contributions to Awas Bandhu, were allowable as application of income.

The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessees' arguments, noting that the CIT(E)'s orders did not appear to have considered the relevant factual matrix. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's first and fourth grounds pertaining to income computation and the stated refund amount. The second and third grounds, concerning the short granting of interest under Section 244A and adjustments to refund amounts, were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh computation and factual verification, as these required detailed examination rather than tribunal adjudication under Section 254(1).

The Tribunal ruled that since the alleged agreement constituted seized material, the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C(1) and not as a "normal" assessment under Section 143(3). Consequently, the impugned assessment was quashed as unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal found prima facie merit in the assessees' arguments, noting that the CIT(E)'s orders did not appear to have considered the relevant factual matrix. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval of the resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes all prior tax liabilities, as confirmed by Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The assessment orders passed after the resolution plan's approval were therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) is bound by limited scrutiny and cannot go beyond the specified issues. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order on issues outside the limited scrutiny scope was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 148. It was held that the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal emphasized that while a return filed in response to a Section 148 notice is considered valid even if filed late, the subsequent assessment must be completed by drawing proper jurisdiction through the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). The absence of this statutory notice was deemed fatal to the assessment, rendering it bad in law and void ab initio. The Tribunal noted that Section 292BB of the Act, which cures infirmities in the manner of service of notice, does not apply to the complete absence of a notice. Therefore, the assessment completed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that other grounds raised by the assessee were kept open at this stage. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were partly allowed, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee regarding the reopening of assessment under Section 148. It was held that the AO failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Tribunal emphasized that while a return filed in response to a Section 148 notice is considered valid even if filed late, the subsequent assessment must be completed by drawing proper jurisdiction through the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). The absence of this statutory notice was deemed fatal to the assessment, rendering it bad in law and void ab initio. The Tribunal noted that Section 292BB of the Act, which cures infirmities in the manner of service of notice, does not apply to the complete absence of a notice. Therefore, the assessment completed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) was quashed. The Tribunal explicitly stated that other grounds raised by the assessee were kept open at this stage. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were partly allowed, and all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made additions based solely on CBEC data without proper reconciliation or providing the assessee with the data. Therefore, the issue of customs duty addition was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and reconciliation.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made additions based solely on CBEC data without proper reconciliation or providing the assessee with the data. Therefore, the issue of customs duty addition was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and reconciliation.

Both the CIT(A) and the ITAT found that the AO's initiation of reassessment proceedings was invalid. The AO failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the first proviso to Section 147 for reopening assessments beyond four years, specifically by basing the action on an incorrect premise (non-filing of return) and failing to record satisfaction that the assessee did not disclose full and true material facts necessary for assessment. Consequently, the reassessment was annulled.

Following a precedent from the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the declaration filed under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme-2024 is not accepted by the Revenue for any reason.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it failed to specifically state the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found such an ambiguous notice rendered the penalty unsustainable in law. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued to the wrong address suffered from an "incorrigible defect," rendering the subsequent assessment order under Section 143(3) invalid. Since the jurisdictional foundation of the notice failed, the entire assessment order based on it collapsed.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic, failing to consider the assessee's submissions (cash flow statement, Patwari certificate) and not confronting the assessee with an Inspector's report regarding land distance. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing a fresh examination of issues, provision of adequate opportunity, and confrontation of the Inspector's report to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the seized software did not contain any mention of the assessees' names in relation to cash receipts. The AO's additions were based on presumptions and lacked corroborative evidence, making them unsustainable.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the NFAC for de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the seized software did not contain any mention of the assessees' names in relation to cash receipts. The AO's additions were based on presumptions and lacked corroborative evidence, making them unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, concluding that the CIT(A) had rightly found no addition permissible for old loans appearing merely as opening balances. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to demonstrate that the assessee passed on a benefit to its AE by extending credit beyond the industry average. Since the assessee was debt-free and its credit period was within the industry norm, the addition on account of interest on receivables was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the NFAC for de novo adjudication, emphasizing that the assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the seized software did not contain any mention of the assessees' names in relation to cash receipts. The AO's additions were based on presumptions and lacked corroborative evidence, making them unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was invoked beyond the period of limitation, as the issues raised were not part of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee for paying interest on security deposits to flat owners should be set off against the interest income earned. The Tribunal also noted that Section 40(ba) is not applicable for computing income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the seized software did not contain any mention of the assessees' names in relation to cash receipts. The AO's additions were based on presumptions and lacked corroborative evidence, making them unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was time-barred as it was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period from the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The issue raised by the PCIT was also not part of the reassessment proceedings.