ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard, consider all evidence, and pass a reasoned order, including on the maintainability of the original proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the payment of license fee for the use of goodwill is not an expenditure for a prohibited purpose and thus allowable. The ad-hoc disallowance of foreign travelling expenses was not sustainable, and the TDS credit claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to pinpoint any specific charging section under which the addition of Rs. 1 crore was made before invoking Section 115BBE. This legal infirmity was fatal to the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the payment of license fee for the use of goodwill is not an expenditure for a prohibited purpose and thus allowable. The ad-hoc disallowance of foreign travelling expenses was not sustainable, and the TDS credit claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the additions under Section 68 for share application money and unsecured loans were not sustainable as the assessee had established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties. The rejection of books of accounts was also found to be improper, rendering the subsequent estimation of income invalid.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of shares and the associated cash transactions did indeed constitute a diversion of the institution's property for the benefit of specified persons (Farooqui family) under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3) of the Act. Consequently, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely on estimation. Citing a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal found the impugned penalty unsustainable in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, allowing the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard and present necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were not time-barred. The exclusion period under Section 153B Explanation (viii) for references to foreign authorities was correctly applied, and the assessment was completed within the permissible time frame.

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed on December 30, 2016, were not time-barred. The Tribunal reasoned that the reference made to UAE authorities, which was honored by the UAE authorities on August 9, 2017, fell within a period of 'one year' of the reference, thereby extending the limitation period. The assessee's reliance on a jurisdictional High Court decision concerning the Indo-Swiss DTAA was distinguished, as the notification therein contained specific time period stipulations for fiscal years on or after April 1, 2011, which were not applicable to the assessment years in question. Regarding the India-UAE DTAA, Article 28 and Notification No. 29 of 2013 did not contain such time period stipulations. The Tribunal cited Union of India and Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Linklaters LLP vs. ITO (2010) 9 ITR (Trib.) 217 (Mum) to emphasize that tax treaties should be interpreted in good faith. Consequently, the assessee's contentions regarding the assessments being time-barred were rejected. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits, having quashed the assessments on limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits. The Revenue's appeals were allowed, and the assessee's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that there was no receipt or evidence presented to substantiate the addition. The lower authorities relied solely on alleged information without proper reconciliation or substantiation, finding no merit in the impugned addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were completed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The last warrant of search was executed on February 19, 2014, meaning assessments under Section 153A should have been completed by March 31, 2016, as per Section 153B.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the assessee's submissions and relied on Supreme Court decisions, making the issue debatable. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable, and the AO's assessment order was based on a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that the period of limitation for assessment could not be extended under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B based on the reference made. This was because the reference was not in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA as amended, and the relevant article had ceased to exist after a certain date.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were not time-barred, as the information received from UAE authorities was within the permissible period. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the remaining issues on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new system of faceless hearings. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not doubted the objects of the trust. The evidence, including photographs, demonstrated that the assessee was indeed distributing food to the poor as per its objects. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to restore the provisional registration and grant registration under Section 12A and 80G.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity for the Assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as it was not passed within the time prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint CIT under Section 153D for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed non-est and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not filed a specific reconciliation of the cash deposits, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,32,000/- would be just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent. The accumulated interest income from the deposits was held to be duly explained.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were not time-barred. The period of limitation for framing assessments was extended due to a reference made to UAE authorities, and the assessment was completed within the permissible extended period.

The tribunal held that the assessment was not time-barred. It reasoned that the period from the reference to the UAE authorities until the last received information, or one year (whichever is less), is excluded. The assessment was completed within this extended period.

The Tribunal held that the compliance of filing/uploading Form 10B is a directory, not a mandatory, provision. Therefore, the denial of exemption was set aside.

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 reopening of assessment was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. Citing the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the reopening.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.

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 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 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 exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the services rendered. It also held that managerial services are not 'fee for technical services' under the India-UK DTAA, thus no TDS was required.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the enhanced compensation and restored the issue to the AO for recomputation. Similarly, the issue regarding the deduction for political contribution was also restored to the AO for verification and recalculation based on prevailing law.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from Indian customers do not qualify as fees for technical services or fees for included services under the India-US tax treaty. This decision aligns with previous rulings by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the additions made were solely based on the allegation that the loan was an accommodation entry, despite the amounts being paid and repaid through banking channels and the assessee providing supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the transactions appeared genuine as they were conducted through banking channels and repaid.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal decided on the transfer pricing adjustments related to R&D services and purchase of raw materials. It also addressed the issue of interest on external commercial borrowings, considering the benchmarking rates and the financial health of the assessee.

The Tribunal decided that the assessee's grounds regarding the addition on account of contract R&D services were not maintainable. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grounds concerning the addition on account of purchase of raw materials and set aside the order of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the pandemic and relevant case law. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

The Tribunal acknowledged that some past cash accumulations could not be ruled out, considering the assessee's socio-economic status. It deemed a lump sum addition of Rs.65,000/- to be just and proper, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded during the survey, which was later retracted, lacked evidentiary value without corroboration. The expenditure from the loose sheet was not substantiated by other evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had disclosed donations and held valid registrations, making the invocation of certain sections inappropriate.

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 decided on issues related to the benchmarking of international transactions, including R&D services and AMP expenses. The appeals involved disputes over the determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) and the classification of certain expenses as international transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the validity of the reopening itself was in question due to a lack of valid approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151. The approval provided was examined.

The Tribunal noted that the NCLT had imposed a moratorium and directed the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the assessee's submissions and relied on Supreme Court decisions, making the issue debatable. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable, and the AO's assessment order was based on a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of time for exchange of information under Explanation (ix) to Section 153B is applicable only if the reference is made in terms of Section 90/90A and the relevant DTAA. Since the reference was not in terms of the amended Indo-Swiss DTAA, the assessments were barred by limitation.