ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2025

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 payments were largely explained and could be reconciled with documentation, including Form 26AS, and that the total payments exceeded the amount of the addition. Therefore, the addition under Section 69 was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition under Section 68. It held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing documentary evidence for identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions, which the AO failed to rebut with contrary evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that no incriminating material related to the share capital investment was impounded during the search, a crucial factor in assessments initiated under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment based on the search warrant address was not sustainable. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without due application of mind. Consequently, the assessment was quashed.

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.

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 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 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 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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the appeal. It deleted the addition of Rs. 3.26 Lacs for unexplained investment, finding the source explained by Stridhan and personal savings. The ITAT also deleted the addition of Rs. 39,000/- for notional income, citing contradictory and perverse findings by the lower authorities. Ground 3, concerning the search procedure, was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the mandatory approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the Joint Commissioner. This mechanical exercise of power vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, and consequently, the assessment orders were declared void ab initio and quashed, without adjudicating the quantum additions on merits.

The Tribunal held that the mandatory approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was granted mechanically without proper application of mind by the Joint Commissioner. This mechanical exercise of power vitiated the entire assessment proceedings, and consequently, the assessment orders were declared void ab initio and quashed, without adjudicating the quantum additions on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, rendering the assessment orders void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the issue raised by the Revenue was not emanating from the impugned order and that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on a remand report where the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's submissions and did not contest the additions. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Revenue's appeal failed due to the favorable remand report.

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 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 held that since the company was not in existence at the time the reassessment notice was issued, the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio. The AO proceeded with the reassessment despite being aware that the company had been struck off.

The Tribunal held that since the company was not in existence at the time the reassessment notice was issued, the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio. The AO proceeded with the reassessment despite being aware that the company had been struck off.

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 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 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 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 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 held that the notices issued under Section 148 were dispatched after the effective date of the amended provisions (April 1, 2021), which required compliance with Section 148A. Since these procedures were not followed, the notices were considered bad in law and without jurisdiction. Furthermore, for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the assessment was completed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), which is a mandatory procedural requirement.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were dispatched after the effective date of the amended provisions (April 1, 2021), which required compliance with Section 148A. Since these procedures were not followed, the notices were considered bad in law and without jurisdiction. Furthermore, for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the assessment was completed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), which is a mandatory procedural requirement.

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 restored the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on the points raised by the assessee after giving a proper opportunity, considering the orders of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the imprest account, finding it was duly recorded in the books and its quantum was a business decision. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for unsecured loans, as the assessee successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors and transactions, which were also recorded in the books of account.

The tribunal found that NFAC decided the matter ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits. Considering that notices were sent to an email ID different from the one on record, the tribunal restored the appeal to NFAC for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits. For fairness, the appeal was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances made by the AO on various grounds including expenditure claimed under Section 57, interest to unit holders, depreciation allocation, and expenses related to timber, commercial land, and joint ventures. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly allowed these claims based on the evidence and submissions.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed contradictions in the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicant and transaction. It noted that the CIT(A) failed to fully appreciate that transactions were through book entries and the justification of share premium based on land value. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication.

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted additional evidence under Rule 46A, which the Assessing Officer accepted in a Remand Report, thereby not contesting the additions. The ITAT, finding no reason to interfere, confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, which had granted relief based on the Remand Report.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, affirming that since the assessee's books of account were not rejected and purchases were accepted, the corresponding cash sales could not be disputed. It was also noted that the large volume of the assessee's glass bangle trade justified high cash transactions and that repayment of old outstandings in SBNs during demonetization was a common phenomenon. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,80,90,330 made under Section 68 was confirmed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition in haste without adequately verifying documents or the court order which indicated the cash was released to multiple parties. The matter is therefore restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, requiring examination of all documentary evidence and court orders regarding the shared ownership of the recovered cash, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to substantiate the claim that the cash deposits were from the sale of agricultural land. An affidavit alone, without corroborating evidence like a registered sale deed, is not sufficient proof.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for verification of the deposit date of employee's share of PF/ESI against salary disbursement. The AO is directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with the statutory notices issued by the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with the statutory notices issued by the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not complied with the statutory notices issued by the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted the revenue's contention regarding the violation of Rule 46A and agreed to re-examine the evidence, allowing the assessee to furnish fresh evidence.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding rejection under Section 12A had been set aside by the ITAT for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal decided that the issue of registration under Section 80G should also be set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the supply of drawings and designs was inextricably linked to the supply of plant and equipment and could not be considered on a standalone basis. Therefore, it was not taxable as FTS in India.