ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the additional evidence without a proper hearing and that the submitted documents (statements of affairs) required examination on merits. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the assessee had provided sufficient proof for the cash deposit.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's election to settle under the DTVSVS 2024 and treated the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to file a miscellaneous application for recall of the order if the Department does not accept the DTVSVS application.

The tribunal held that the rejection of the appeal without considering the adjournment application was unfair. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10IE is directory and not mandatory. An inadvertent error in filing the form should not deprive the assessee of significant benefits. The Tribunal quashed the order of the CPC and CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Revenue cannot change its position regarding the allowability of interest expenditure in the current year when it was allowed in previous years, applying the principle of consistency. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction with Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta. The evidence provided was insufficient and lacked corroboration.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a change of opinion and lacked proper grounds for reopening after four years. The additions under Section 14A and Section 37 were also deleted due to lack of proper justification and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a change of opinion and lacked proper grounds for reopening after four years. The additions under Section 14A and Section 37 were also deleted due to lack of proper justification and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as they were based on a change of opinion and lacked proper grounds for reopening after four years. The additions under Section 14A and Section 37 were also deleted due to lack of proper justification and evidence.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable only in cases of proven concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, not merely for making a claim not acceptable in law. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for commission, royalty, and advertisement expenses, but allowed the Revenue's appeal on license fee payment for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof and that the activities of the Indian entity did not meet the criteria for a PE under the India-Singapore DTAA.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable only in cases of proven concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, not merely for making a claim not acceptable in law. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowances for commission, royalty, and advertisement expenses, but allowed the Revenue's appeal on license fee payment for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the return filed on 14.01.2011 was for AY 2009-10, and the actual return for AY 2010-11 was filed on 24.03.2011. This error demonstrated non-application of mind by the AO in recording reasons, leading to a wrongful assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.

The ITAT agreed with the assessee that Section 69A applies only when books of account are not maintained, which was contradicted by the AO's own findings that transactions were recorded. The ITAT set aside the lower authorities' order and remanded the matter to the AO for a limited verification of the details provided by the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition if sales are found duly recorded.

Following the precedent of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it granted the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude Infosys BPO Ltd. from the final set of comparables, citing functional dissimilarity, high brand value, and extraordinary events based on prior decisions. For working capital adjustment, the AO/TPO was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and grant appropriate relief after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to frame the assessments as the assessee's returned income was below Rs. 15,00,000/-. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was granted on the same day the proposal was sent and not for each assessment year separately. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the lands could not be considered urban at the time of sale as the notification came later. Therefore, the capital gains tax was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction as there was no order under Section 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction. The Tribunal further noted that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were factually incorrect and that the approval under Section 151 was mechanical. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's appeal first. Regarding the addition of Rs.1,24,000/- for investment in land in village Dhatir, the Tribunal noted that the actual investment was Rs.25,000/- and Rs.75,000/-, and found no merit in the Revenue's ground seeking to revive the extrapolated amount, thus rejecting it. For the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- related to plot no. 438, Sector-3, Faridabad, the Tribunal observed that the actual figure was Rs.10,000/-, which already stood upheld, and rejected the revival of the remaining addition. Concerning the substantial issue of Rs.1,13,41,500/- involving investments in 'HUDA' plots/properties, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not own the properties but his name appeared in seized material along with asset rates, leading to the conclusion that he acted as a real estate broker earning commission income. Applying Section 292C of the Act, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's contentions against assessing commission income and directed the Assessing Officer to assess a lump sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, stating this would not be treated as a precedent. The Revenue's third ground was partly accepted to this extent. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that the lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs would cover all substantive grounds through the 'telescoping' method. The assessee's former grounds challenging the validity of the section 158BD assessment, which were settled in a prior round up to the High Court, were rejected. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Revenue's penalty appeal was dismissed as no quantum additions were upheld in principle. The Tribunal decided that the Rs. 2 lakh commission income assessment would cover all substantive grounds of the assessee, applying the 'telescoping' method. The assessee's grounds challenging the validity of the section 158BD assessment were rejected as they were already settled up to the High Court. The Revenue's penalty appeal was dismissed because the underlying quantum additions were not upheld.

The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's appeal first. Regarding the addition of Rs.1,24,000/- for investment in land in village Dhatir, the Tribunal noted that the actual investment was Rs.25,000/- and Rs.75,000/-, and found no merit in the Revenue's ground seeking to revive the extrapolated amount, thus rejecting it. For the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- related to plot no. 438, Sector-3, Faridabad, the Tribunal observed that the actual figure was Rs.10,000/-, which already stood upheld, and rejected the revival of the remaining addition. Concerning the substantial issue of Rs.1,13,41,500/- involving investments in 'HUDA' plots/properties, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not own the properties but his name appeared in seized material along with asset rates, leading to the conclusion that he acted as a real estate broker earning commission income. Applying Section 292C of the Act, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's contentions against assessing commission income and directed the Assessing Officer to assess a lump sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, stating this would not be treated as a precedent. The Revenue's third ground was partly accepted to this extent. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that the lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs would cover all substantive grounds through the 'telescoping' method. The assessee's former grounds challenging the validity of the section 158BD assessment, which were settled in a prior round up to the High Court, were rejected. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Revenue's penalty appeal was dismissed as no quantum additions were upheld in principle. The Tribunal decided that the Rs. 2 lakh commission income assessment would cover all substantive grounds of the assessee, applying the 'telescoping' method. The assessee's grounds challenging the validity of the section 158BD assessment were rejected as they were already settled up to the High Court. The Revenue's penalty appeal was dismissed because the underlying quantum additions were not upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to frame the assessments as the assessee's returned income was below Rs. 15,00,000/-. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's appeal first. Regarding the addition of Rs.1,24,000/- for investment in land in village Dhatir, the Tribunal noted that the actual investment was Rs.25,000/- and Rs.75,000/-, and found no merit in the Revenue's ground seeking to revive the extrapolated amount, thus rejecting it. For the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- related to plot no. 438, Sector-3, Faridabad, the Tribunal observed that the actual figure was Rs.10,000/-, which already stood upheld, and rejected the revival of the remaining addition. Concerning the substantial issue of Rs.1,13,41,500/- involving investments in 'HUDA' plots/properties, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not own the properties but his name appeared in seized material along with asset rates, leading to the conclusion that he acted as a real estate broker earning commission income. Applying Section 292C of the Act, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's contentions against assessing commission income and directed the Assessing Officer to assess a lump sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, stating this would not be treated as a precedent. The Revenue's third ground was partly accepted to this extent. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal held that the lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs would cover all substantive grounds through the 'telescoping' method. The assessee's former grounds challenging the validity of the section 158BD assessment, which were settled in a prior round up to the High Court, were rejected. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Revenue's penalty appeal was dismissed as no quantum additions were upheld in principle. The Tribunal decided that the Rs. 2 lakh commission income assessment would cover all substantive grounds of the assessee, applying the 'telescoping' method. The assessee's grounds challenging the validity of the section 158BD assessment were rejected as they were already settled up to the High Court. The Revenue's penalty appeal was dismissed because the underlying quantum additions were not upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were not sustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D was obtained for multiple assessment years. This common approval was found to vitiate the entire assessment process.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as a single approval was given for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of each case. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity for a hearing and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's commodity transactions were conducted through the NSEL platform and the addition made by estimating income was contrary to the nature of the business. The addition was deleted as the purchases and sales reflected the real income.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the annual letting value of the house property back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The decision was based on municipal valuation, following previous orders and a High Court directive.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the annual letting value of the house property back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The decision was based on municipal valuation, following previous orders and a High Court directive.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153A was not properly served on the assessee while in judicial custody, rendering the proceedings bad in law. It also found that the approval under Section 153D was not granted with due application of mind, as it was given mechanically for multiple cases on a single day.

The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. The assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the issue of share ownership and title.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the jurisdictional AO in Gurgaon had not issued a notice under Section 143(2) after the case records were transferred from Dibrugarh. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction note for invoking section 153C was vague, non-descript, and lacked application of mind, failing to link incriminating material to specific assessment years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings under section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on surplus funds invested with cooperative banks and other banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d). It also held that commission income earned from the regular business activity of marketing cane produce is eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn based on the application filed under the VSVS. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the VSVS application fails.

The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the Revenue did not controvert the averments made. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the benefit under the VSVS Scheme was not extended.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the Revenue did not controvert the averments made. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the benefit under the VSVS Scheme was not extended.

The Tribunal followed the ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the assessee's own case, which held that such funds are not taxable and the assessee is entitled to exemption. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded sufficient satisfaction for making the disallowance under Section 14A. However, it directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to 1% of the average value of investments yielding exempt dividend income. The issue of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) expenses was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the Revenue did not controvert the averments made. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the benefit under the VSVS Scheme was not extended.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the Revenue did not controvert the averments made. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the benefit under the VSVS Scheme was not extended.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of exempt income for the assessment year 2018-19, as the amendment to the Explanation of Section 14A is prospective. The Tribunal also noted that the issue regarding employees' contribution to PF had already been decided against the assessee.

The Tribunal, while noting the absence of the assessee, relied on the decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). The Tribunal held that technical aspects should not impede substantial justice. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was condoned. The assessee's appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication within three effective opportunities. The taxpayer was cautioned to plead and prove their case at their own risk and responsibility in the consequential proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, as they were self-explanatory and the CIT-DR had no objection. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically for multiple assessees and assessment years, violating the requirement of individual application of mind for each year. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.