ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the additions on account of bogus expenses and loss on sale of shares were already considered in the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) and deleted by the CIT(A), with the CIT(A)'s order being upheld. Therefore, these issues could not be agitated again in reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition on a transaction different from the reasons recorded for reopening, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's second ground.

The Tribunal held that comparables undergoing extraordinary events like amalgamation or having significant business restructuring are unsuitable. It directed the exclusion of certain comparables and upheld the exclusion of others based on functional dissimilarity and extraordinary events.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans from directors, as transactions were through banking channels with sufficient opening balances. The Tribunal also found no reason to disbelieve the assessee's explanation for the loss of liquor due to repair work.

The Tribunal held that mere non-furnishing of documents in the specific manner sought by the AO, when all available details were provided and no transfer pricing adjustment was made, does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271G. Similarly, penalty under Section 271AA was also not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that mere non-furnishing of documents in the specific manner sought by the AO, when all available details were provided and no transfer pricing adjustment was made, does not automatically warrant a penalty under Section 271G. Similarly, penalty under Section 271AA was also not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) passed the order without providing a proper opportunity of being heard and without considering the submission and documents produced by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three comparables (Thirdware Solution Limited, Larsen & Tourbo Infotech Limited, and CG-VAK Software and Exports Ltd.) and the inclusion of two comparables (Evoke Technologies Ltd. and CAT Technologies Ltd.) in the TP study. The TPO was directed to conduct a fresh TP study.

The Tribunal held that comparables undergoing extraordinary events like amalgamation or having significant business restructuring are unsuitable. It directed the exclusion of certain comparables and upheld the exclusion of others based on functional dissimilarity and extraordinary events.

The Tribunal held that while the AO erred in mentioning Section 56(2)(x) instead of Section 50C, the substance of the issue under Section 50C was discussed. However, since the AO did not refer the valuation to the DVO as requested, the issue under Section 50C is restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding Section 54F, the Tribunal held that for exemption, mere investment and possession of the new property is sufficient, not necessarily a registered deed, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in dismissing the application as not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's registration under Section 12AB was still in force, and filing of ITR-7 was irrelevant for considering the claim of exemption under Section 80G(5).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in dismissing the application as not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's registration under Section 12AB was still in force, and filing of ITR-7 was irrelevant for considering the claim of exemption under Section 80G(5).

The Tribunal directed the JCIT(A) to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication, ordering that the issue be decided afresh after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme declaration is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 151 of the Act was granted mechanically, without proper application of mind by the Additional CIT. Similar approvals were previously held to be mechanical by various High Courts.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme declaration is not accepted.

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 held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand as per the cash flow statement to make the deposits. The Department failed to prove the cash was utilized for other purposes. The AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme declaration is not accepted.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons reasonable. It held that the ld. CIT(E) decided the issue without proper appreciation of facts or affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, thus restoring the matter to the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. for job work charges were deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the additions made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. for job work charges were deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the additions made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. for job work charges were deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the additions made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. for job work charges were deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the additions made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. for job work charges were deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the additions made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made on a substantive basis in the case of M/s Orient Craft Ltd. for job work charges were deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the additions made on a protective basis in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue were dismissed.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme declaration is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any violation of Chapter XVIIB or Section 40A(3) of the Act regarding TDS non-deduction for rent and salary payments. Despite the assessee providing basic details, no proper inquiry was conducted. Therefore, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified and was deleted.

The Tribunal held that several comparable companies identified or rejected by the TPO/DRP were not functionally similar or did not meet the required criteria. The matter was restored to the TPO to recompute the ALP after including/excluding comparables and applying a tolerance range of +/- 1%.

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 held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable without adjudicating on merits. It condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause, and directed NFAC to adjudicate the appeals afresh.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a proper application for condonation of delay with supporting affidavit, which the CIT(A) is to consider and decide in accordance with law, particularly relying on the Apex Court judgments cited.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the issue raised in the appeal had been resolved by an order passed by the CPC, Bengaluru under Section 154 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable without adjudicating on merits. It condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause, and directed NFAC to adjudicate the appeals afresh.

The Tribunal held that the period of six assessment years for the purpose of Section 153C should be calculated from the date of recording the satisfaction note, which is the date of search. Since the search was on 22.10.2016, the six-year period for AY 2012-13 had already expired, making the assessment barred by limitation.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme declaration is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by not considering the opening balance of Rs. 28,85,000/-, which led to an incorrect determination of negative cash balance. The addition made based on this flawed reasoning was deemed improper.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals to avail the benefit of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. The Revenue had no objection. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the appeals if the scheme declaration is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was an 'eligible assessee' as defined under Section 144C(15)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, the AO was required to issue a draft assessment order before passing the final assessment order. The AO's failure to do so rendered the assessment order without jurisdiction and void.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It also noted that the CIT(A) had missed a vital direction regarding the eligibility of weighted deduction based on the date of approval. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment was invalid. This was because the reassessment proceedings were initiated after four years from the end of the assessment year, and the conditions of the first proviso to Section 148 were not met.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that demands relating to the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan are extinguished by operation of law, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashaym Mishra & Sons Private Limited.

The Tribunal held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) should revisit the issue by examining the documents that were not initially placed before it. The appeal was remitted back to the DRP for reconsideration of the matter, allowing the assessee to submit all details and for the DRP to finalize the issue within eight months.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act because the issue of interest disallowance was an offshoot of the primary issue already under appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) could have dealt with it using enhancement powers.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid because the primary reason for reopening (bogus LTCG) was deleted by the CIT(A) and no addition on that basis survived. Consequently, the entire reassessment order was quashed.

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 upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, stating the AO had not recorded objective satisfaction. It also upheld the deletion of legal and professional charges, deeming them revenue expenditure incurred for business purposes.