ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal held that the principle of 'approbate and reprobate' requires that if sales are accepted, related expenses must also be considered. The case was remitted to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unable to respond to notices due to illness and lack of technological knowledge. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that communication gaps, especially with new virtual hearing mechanisms, could not be ruled out, and there was a lack of compliance with Section 250(6) in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from product analytics solutions are not taxable as Fee for Included Services (FIS) because the 'make available' clause of the DTAA was not satisfied. The technical knowledge was not made available to the recipient for future independent use.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a speaking and reasoned order. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations and documents regarding discrepancies in accounts and capital introduction. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is in the nature of revenue receipt and is therefore taxable. The specific approach to recognizing the subsidy in accounts for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 required further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy/incentive received by the assessee was a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt. Furthermore, the claim for exclusion of this subsidy could not be made for the first time during proceedings under Section 153A if it was not claimed in the original or revised return.

The Tribunal held that while purchases might be bogus, only a certain percentage should be sustained as income, considering the actual benefit earned. The assessee had declared a GP rate of 2.1%, and the Tribunal directed that a differential rate of 10% (totaling 12.5%) be added as income.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy/incentive constituted a capital receipt and was not liable to tax. It also ruled that the Assessing Officer has a duty to allow allowable claims even if not explicitly made in the return.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to consider and allow allowable claims, even if not explicitly made in the return, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The claim for non-taxability of sales tax subsidy was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credit in the case of Nimitaya Properties Ltd. for AY 2006-07 was unjustified and rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the share capital introduced by the directors, including their financial capacity. The onus was on the revenue to prove otherwise, which it failed to do. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in shares in the case of Nimitaya Promotors Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2005-06. The assessee had furnished satisfactory evidence to demonstrate the genuineness of the investment and the financial capacity of the investors. The Tribunal reasoned that when the assessee demonstrates the source and application of funds, and the transaction is supported by documentary evidence, the addition under Section 68 or 69 is not sustainable. The ratio decidendi is that the revenue must prove a transaction to be not genuine or unexplained, rather than the assessee proving its genuineness beyond doubt once a prima facie case is made out.

The Tribunal noted that grounds regarding mechanical approval under Section 153D of the Act were raised in all appeals and cross objections. The Tribunal reproduced the grounds from Assessment Year 2006-07 for convenience.

The Tribunal held that the claim for exclusion of sales tax subsidy/incentive was admissible even if made during proceedings under Section 153A or via revised computation. The Assessing Officer has a duty to consider allowable claims suo motu.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that an addition solely based on a retracted statement recorded under Section 132(4) without any corroborating incriminating material is not sustainable. The assessee had also explained the loose papers found, and these explanations were accepted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned and granted a further opportunity to the assessee to have the appeal considered on merit. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to frame points of determination and provide a detailed discussion. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable. It relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and distinguished the High Court decisions relied upon by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders invalid. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal observed that the rental income and TDS were treated similarly in the preceding year (AY 2019-20) and allowed by the NFAC. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, the AO was directed to allow the relevant tax credit to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the entire assessment proceeding is vitiated and liable to be quashed because the assessee was not supplied with a copy of the reasons for reopening, despite a specific request. The assessment order was found to be invalid and suffering from jurisdictional error.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether MAT credit should be included in the fair market value of shares is debatable. Since the AO had made due inquiries and was satisfied, the PCIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order issued by the ITO, Ward 1(1) Noida suffered from a jurisdictional error. The jurisdictional AO of the assessee was established to be in Bhubaneswar, not New Delhi.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer is duty-bound to consider and allow allowable claims, even if not explicitly made in the return, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The claim for non-taxability of sales tax subsidy was allowed.

The Tribunal observed that while the purchases were bogus, only a certain percentage should be added as income, considering the benefit earned. It was noted that the assessee had declared a GP rate of 6.89% in its return, and a 12.5% GP rate is a reasonable addition in such cases.

The Tribunal held that Section 200A(1)(c), which enables the computation of late fees under Section 234E at the time of processing TDS statements, was introduced effective from 01.06.2015. Therefore, for assessment years prior to this date, including the AY 2013-14, authorities were not empowered to impose late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that revenue records indicated the land was agricultural and did not fall within the definition of a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii)(b)(I) due to its distance from municipal limits. The report relied upon by the AO was considered to have little evidentiary value due to its late date, and the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the capital gains addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases, relying on various court rulings and the evidence submitted by the assessee. The AO's disallowance based on suspicion without concrete evidence was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening were fallacious and contrary to the facts on record. The Competent Authority appears to have mechanically approved the AO's reasons. Consequently, the subsequent reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after being satisfied with the bonafide reasons. The Tribunal accepted the explanation and supporting documents provided by the assessee regarding the use of his credit card for business expenses by the friend's company.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding the issues on merit. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity of being heard on merit.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. The matter was restored to the AO for a denovo assessment.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding professional fees, relying on a Supreme Court precedent. For project system expenses, while the CIT(A) had allowed relief, the Tribunal found that the details were not fully presented to the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal observed that the issues in the appeal are covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches. The Tribunal noted that there was no change in facts and circumstances compared to prior years and that the principle of consistency should apply.

The Tribunal held that the approval process under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment orders illegal and liable to be quashed. Similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches, upholding the assessee's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is in the nature of revenue receipt and is therefore taxable. The specific approach to recognizing the subsidy in audited accounts for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 required further verification.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind for each assessment year. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as non-est and a nullity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established legitimate business reasons for engaging the AE for supervision services, especially given the company's limited employee costs for a project of that magnitude. The Tribunal found that the TPO had overstepped their jurisdiction by questioning the commercial prudence of the expenses without substantive evidence.