ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal found that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Apex Court held that payments towards employee's contribution to ESIC/PF after the due date are not allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous or that adequate enquiries were not made. The PCIT's directions were considered fishing and roving enquiries, not permissible under Section 263.

The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's willingness to provide details and in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including sale deeds and bank statements, to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. The nexus between the sale consideration and the bank deposits was established.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was presumed to be served on the assessee, as the postal remarks indicated the assessee was not available and subsequent notices were also not served, suggesting deliberate avoidance. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were considered valid.

The Tribunal held that the explanation for Rs.2,00,000/- from opening cash/family savings was unsubstantiated. However, for the Rs.6,00,000/- withdrawn by deceased individuals via cheques, the bank certificate was considered sufficient evidence. Therefore, the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the case did not fall under any exceptions to the CBDT circulars regarding low tax effect. With the increased monetary limit in a recent circular, the appeal deserved dismissal.

The Tribunal held that while the capacity of the donors to gift the full amount was implausible given their returned income, the explanation could not be entirely disregarded as the gifts were confirmed. The addition was restricted to 50% of the total cash deposits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the dispute through the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's willingness to provide details and in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's willingness to provide details and in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds 1 to 3. It held that the CIT(A)'s action of taxing the receipt of shares under section 28(iv) was unsustainable. The Tribunal reasoned that the CIT(A) erred in treating the transaction as a business arrangement rather than a loan, especially when the assessee had returned some shares and sought the return of others. The Tribunal found no evidence of waiver from the lender or any commercial consideration that would attract section 28(iv). The Tribunal also noted that section 41(1) was not applicable as there was no remission or cessation of a trading liability. The Tribunal further allowed ground no. 4, holding that the adjustment to book profits under section 115JB was impermissible. It relied on the judgment in Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs CIT, stating that section 115JB is self-contained and that since the addition under section 28(iv) was deleted, the consequential adjustment to book losses was also invalid. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's willingness to provide details and in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had already obtained relief for the assessment year 2014-15 in a previous appeal (ITA No. 5093/Del/2019), where the deduction under sections 80-G/80-GGA r.w.s. 35AC was explicitly allowed. Therefore, the present appeal, seeking the same relief, was declared infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's willingness to provide details and in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's willingness to provide details and in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's willingness to provide details and in the interest of justice, the appeals should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that its coordinate benches had quashed the quantum assessment orders under Section 153A, finding them to be without any incriminating material. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that when the additions forming the basis of the penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot survive, and therefore, all appeals are allowed.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee, held that the issue is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). It reiterated that payments of employee's contributions to ESIC/PF made after the statutory due dates are not allowable deductions. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the consideration for drawings and designs, integral to equipment supply, was not taxable as Fees for Technical Services but as Business Profits, provided it was inextricably linked to the sale of plant and equipment and not attributable to a Permanent Establishment in India. The levy of Section 234B interest was also addressed based on statutory amendments.

The Tribunal found considerable force in the assessee's plea regarding errors by the lower authorities. Consequently, all issues were restored to the TPO/AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the relevant limb for initiating penalty proceedings. Following various High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order due to this fatal flaw.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd and a co-ordinate bench ruling, held that payments for computer software by Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident suppliers for resale/use are not 'Royalty' for copyright use. Such payments do not give rise to taxable income in India, thus no TDS liability arises under Section 195. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer.

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 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 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 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 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 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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Sections 269ST and 271DA, introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 (effective 01.04.2017), could not be applied retrospectively to a transaction dated 23.05.2016. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's claim that the CIT(A)'s change in sections was a 'typographical error' and found the CIT(A)'s action of upholding the penalty under Section 271DA to be legally untenable. Consequently, the ITAT directed the AO to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the balance interest claimed under Section 57, stating that home loan interest is only deductible under Section 24(b) for self-occupied property. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of commission expenses due to lack of genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the appellant, Union of India, failed to establish its locus standi to institute the appeals. Since the appellant could not satisfactorily explain how it was an aggrieved party, the appeals were rejected on this ground alone.

The Tribunal held that the appellant, Union of India, failed to establish its locus standi to institute the appeals. Since the appellant could not satisfactorily explain how it was an aggrieved party, the appeals were rejected on this ground alone.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, supported by bank statements showing prior withdrawals from his salary and KCC accounts, was plausible. The fact of having these accounts and income from salary was not disputed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the mandatory Section 143(2) notice was issued for AY 2002-03, making the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order framed under Section 147/143(3) and the consequential penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) were quashed.

The tribunal held that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) was invalid because the proceedings should have been under section 153C, as it was a third-party case related to a search. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2013-14 was allowed. For AY 2014-15, regarding the disallowance of selling expenses, the tribunal allowed 10% of the claimed expenses, stating that complete denial was not justified.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash deposits from earlier bank withdrawals to be plausible and accepted it. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, either before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the medical reasons bonafide. While acknowledging the assessee's plausible explanation for the cash deposits (from handicraft sales, prior withdrawals, and gifts), it restricted the addition under Section 69A to Rs.2,50,000/- due to insufficient documentary evidence for the entire amount, thereby granting relief of Rs.10,05,495/-. The assessee was also directed to update her contact details with the Department.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of share capital transactions. The evidence pointed to a modus operandi of routing unaccounted cash through a particular bank account to facilitate accommodation entries.

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 CIT(A) deleted the addition, classifying the expenses as revenue in nature and recurring without enduring benefits. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that such advertisement and business promotion expenses are revenue expenditure, citing Supreme Court and other judicial precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a trader in shares, was unheard by both lower authorities. To ensure justice and fair play, the matter was remitted back to the AO to provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the consideration for drawings and designs, integral to equipment supply, was not taxable as Fees for Technical Services but as Business Profits, provided it was inextricably linked to the sale of plant and equipment and not attributable to a Permanent Establishment in India. The levy of Section 234B interest was also addressed based on statutory amendments.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's re-joinder to the Remand Report was overlooked, and the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to adduce requisite evidence.

The Tribunal held that the consideration for drawings and designs, integral to equipment supply, was not taxable as Fees for Technical Services but as Business Profits, provided it was inextricably linked to the sale of plant and equipment and not attributable to a Permanent Establishment in India. The levy of Section 234B interest was also addressed based on statutory amendments.

The Tribunal, noting that both the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed ex-parte, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The A.O. was directed to conduct a de-novo assessment after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard, in the interest of substantial justice.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt Ltd and a co-ordinate bench ruling, held that payments for computer software by Indian end-users/distributors to non-resident suppliers for resale/use are not 'Royalty' for copyright use. Such payments do not give rise to taxable income in India, thus no TDS liability arises under Section 195. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that its coordinate benches had quashed the quantum assessment orders under Section 153A, finding them to be without any incriminating material. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that when the additions forming the basis of the penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot survive, and therefore, all appeals are allowed.