ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, recalling its earlier order. However, on merits, it held that since the quantum addition for a prior year was deleted by the Tribunal due to lack of incriminating material found during search, the consequential interest income added in the current year also had no basis and was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, without confronting the evidentiary aspect of the incriminating documents, has no substantive evidentiary value, especially when the documents themselves are ambiguous. The AO's conclusions were found to be unsubstantiated by cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the mixed use charges paid by the assessee are eligible for deduction in computing the annual value of the property. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on the marriage was claimed by the daughter in a complaint, and Section 56(2) of the Act exempts such expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities lacked merit and was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153C cannot be sustained in the absence of incriminating material found during a search, especially when no assessment was pending for the relevant year at the time of the search. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment proceedings was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient details, and the Assessing Officer had not made adequate efforts to verify the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made under Section 153A/153C without incriminating material found during a search, especially when no assessment was pending. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment proceedings was upheld.

The Tribunal found considerable cogency in the assessee's contention. Considering the factual matrix, the Tribunal was of the view that the interest of justice would be served by remitting the issues in dispute in both appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided; the entire matter was remitted.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, following its previous decisions. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance made by the AO, but dismissed the assessee's claim for a further reduction under Section 14A. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s restricted disallowance on maintenance expenses.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,96,26,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act was not entirely justified, following the ratio of the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in ITO Vs Ashapura Petrochem Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the assessee prima facie appeared to have discharged her onus by explaining the source of cash deposits from her petrol pump business, some element of failure to explain the source could not be altogether ruled out. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal directed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, with the rider that it would not be treated as a precedent. This provided relief to the Revenue to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Regarding Section 115BBE, the Tribunal, citing S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT, held that this provision applied only to transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. Necessary computation would follow as per law.

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act were not valid. The Tribunal referred to the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which established that any addition in furtherance of a search action involving an "unabated" assessment must be based on specific incriminating or seized material. The assessment years in question (2011-12 to 2014-15) were unabated at the time of the search. The Tribunal found that mere blank letterheads, as found in this case, do not constitute incriminating material. They are "dumb" documents and cannot form the basis for any addition. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contentions and quashed all the impugned assessments for the four assessment years. The consequential penalty appeals were also allowed as the foundation for the penalties (the assessments) did not exist.

The Tribunal held that the loans received from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. were genuine and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid on these loans was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the income of the BVI company (CCL) could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee in India. It also deleted additions related to a jointly held, closed Singapore bank account, finding no reason to presume non-disclosure.

The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 263. The assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F, which included investment in a property owned by his son, was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessment was invalid due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, which is a mandatory procedural requirement.

The Tribunal held that the minimum guarantee payments made by the assessee were not in the nature of rent under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the disallowance of these expenses and the related TDS liability were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was not maintainable before the Delhi benches due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The STANDING ORDER defines territorial jurisdiction based on the Assessing Officer's location, and Fatehabad was not under the Delhi benches' jurisdiction as of 01.10.1997.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in one appeal. The assessee withdrew grounds related to TP additions as they were settled by an Advance Pricing Agreement. The addition for club expenses was deleted, following the Supreme Court's ruling that such expenses are for business purposes.

The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restore the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to decide the issues afresh in accordance with the law, after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all necessary evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the basis of initiation under Section 153C was the statement of a third party who could not be cross-examined, and that the proceedings were based on 'dump documents'. The Tribunal found that the matter required fresh examination by the AO to ensure fair play and justice. The specific findings on additions/disallowances under Sections 68, 115BBE, 37, and 69C were not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, as the matter was remitted to the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional legal ground and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found that the show cause notice was issued on a limited issue, but the assessment covered a wider scope, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and vitiated the entire reopening process, citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that foreign exchange fluctuation gains are eligible for Section 10A exemption. It also ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to share buy-back payments as they are not claimed as expenditure, and even a lower TDS deduction satisfies the compliance requirement.

The Tribunal found that the case warranted an opportunity for the assessee to raise disputed questions of fact and law before the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the NFAC for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 7.70 Crore as the Assessing Officer's remand report concurred with the assessee's explanation. The addition of Rs. 1,61,468/- was deleted due to lack of specific material and nexus. The enhancement addition was quashed as the reassessment itself was not sustainable.

The tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order. It found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings given the assessee's failure to appear, provide submissions, or rebut the evidence on record. Specifically, the tribunal upheld the additions relating to bogus purchases due to unproved transactions, sundry creditors where the supplier's existence was doubtful, and unexplained capital under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal held that inter-corporate deposits, especially when interest is charged and the transaction is commercial, do not fall under the deeming fiction of Section 2(22)(e). Reliance was placed on judicial precedents and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal restored the issue of prior period expenses to the AO for verification, stating it would be allowable if not claimed in earlier years. The disallowance under Section 14A was decided in favor of the assessee based on previous Tribunal orders. Revenue derecognition was dismissed, while the benefit of special reserves was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue of prior period expenses to the AO for verification, stating it would be allowable if not claimed in earlier years. The disallowance under Section 14A was decided in favor of the assessee based on previous Tribunal orders. Revenue derecognition was dismissed, while the benefit of special reserves was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue of prior period expenses to the AO for verification, stating it would be allowable if not claimed in earlier years. The disallowance under Section 14A was decided in favour of the assessee based on previous tribunal orders. Revenue derecognition was dismissed, while the benefit of special reserves was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery declared in the wealth tax return, being part of the record, cannot be considered as additional evidence. Since the declared jewellery exceeded the found jewellery, no addition was warranted on this count. The cash deposit was also found to be within the permissible limit for explanation without further verification.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contentions. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had already duly considered the ESI/PF issue in his regular assessment. Therefore, revisiting the same issue through Section 154 rectification is not permissible, citing the Supreme Court decision in T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC). Consequently, the impugned rectification order dated 26.09.2022 was reversed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to insufficient tax effect. Assessee's appeals were partly allowed, with some disallowances reduced and others allowed, granting consequential relief.

The Tribunal restored the issue of prior period expenses to the AO for verification, stating it would be allowable if not claimed in earlier years. The disallowance under Section 14A was decided in favor of the assessee based on previous Tribunal orders. Revenue derecognition was dismissed, while the benefit of special reserves was restored to the AO.

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 lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to substantiate their findings that the impugned transaction was non-genuine. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of online purchase, banking channel payments, dematerialized shares, and receipt of consideration through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the addition for demonetization cash deposits was unwarranted, as similar deposits were made throughout the year and accepted. For the profit estimation, it directed re-computation based on average net profits of preceding years, as Section 44AD was not applicable. The 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE was deemed prospective.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on entries in the 'Hazir Johri' software without corroborative evidence. Relying on previous judgments with similar facts, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence linking the seized data to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 276 days in filing the appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, particularly with the introduction of virtual hearing mechanisms, and also noted the absence of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, which mandates the framing of points of determination and detailed adjudication. Consequently, in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant, at the appellant's risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that communication gaps might have occurred, and the lower appellate order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s findings were based on a true appreciation of facts and evidence. The Revenue failed to provide counter-evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to intervene in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent inquiry by the AO. Relying on previous co-ordinate bench decisions with similar facts and evidence, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned additions.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). While acknowledging that cash deposits could have originated from cash withdrawals, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that these represented business transactions and that estimating profit at 8% was appropriate given the circumstances, including potential cash sales.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration retrospectively. The provisions regarding 'specified violations' and consequential withdrawal of registration were introduced effective from April 1, 2022, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years.