ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from its earlier decision in the connected case of Sh. Sanjay Jindal (ITA Nos. 8511 to 8516/Del/2019) decided on 21st December, 2023. The core of the decision was that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C was not in accordance with law. Specifically, it was found that the satisfaction note did not refer to any particular seized material belonging to the assessee, nor did it specify the assessment years to which the seized materials related. Furthermore, it did not explain how the seized materials were incriminating in nature. The Tribunal affirmed the view of the learned first appellate authority that the satisfaction note was vague, bland, and bereft of necessary reasoning, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society. The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 153C(1) by substituting 'belonging to' with 'pertaining to' did not negate the ratio laid down in Sinhgad Technical Education Society. The Tribunal also found that the additions made were not sustainable as they were not based on any incriminating materials found during search and seizure operations, and that the additions made to the assessee's income did not have any relation or nexus with the seized materials. The Tribunal further noted that in the case of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd., the Tribunal had previously held that purchases from the assessee's proprietary concern were genuine and the seized materials relating to these purchases were not incriminating. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the section 153C proceedings were non-est in the eyes of law, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and rendering the assessee's cross-objections infructuous.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the actual remittance dates from the PF and ESI challans, considering the possibility that the tax audit report might be inaccurate regarding the delay.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and violated principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) failed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and violated principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The final opportunity notice was issued on December 15, 2016, posted on December 16, 2016, and received on December 19, 2016. With December 20 and 21, 2016, being a weekend, the assessee had only December 22 and 23, 2016, to prepare and submit its response before the assessment order was passed on December 23, 2016. The Tribunal, following the ratio of the Supreme Court in Tin Box Co. Vs. CIT, reiterated that an assessment order must be passed only after the assessee has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to set up its case. Therefore, the impugned assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were found to be not just, fair, reasonable, or legal. The additional grounds of appeal were allowed, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, with the direction that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dealing with the appeals on merit without first condoning the delay in filing the appeals. This action was considered a violation of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be bona fide, noting that the appellant did not gain anything by not filing the appeal promptly. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned. In the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.03.2022 was set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The appellant was to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were part of the assessee's gross turnover from his transporter business, which was reflected in the return of income. The explanation provided by the assessee was found to be plausible.

The Tribunal held that the license fee payment is capital in nature and should be amortized as per Section 35ABB of the Act. The issue regarding additional grounds of appeal was remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions based on estimations or deeming fictions, as there was no finding of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the AO. Furthermore, the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars, but the penalty order invoked concealment of income, indicating ambiguity and inconsistency.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dealing with the appeals on merit without first condoning the delay in filing the appeals. This action was considered a violation of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be bona fide, noting that the appellant did not gain anything by not filing the appeal promptly. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned. In the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.03.2022 was set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The appellant was to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dealing with the appeals on merit without first condoning the delay in filing the appeals. This action was considered a violation of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be bona fide, noting that the appellant did not gain anything by not filing the appeal promptly. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeals was condoned. In the interest of justice, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.03.2022 was set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The appellant was to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly adopted the total capitalized value of the company as the sale consideration and erred in treating the sale of shares as a sale of assets. It also noted that Section 50CA could not be invoked for the period prior to April 1, 2018. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining necessary approval. Since the AO travelled beyond his jurisdiction, the assessment order was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'professional services' in Article 15(2) of the DTAA is inclusive, not exhaustive, and does not require services to be governed by a professional body. It also found that the 'make available' requirement of Article 12(4)(b) was not satisfied.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer was vague and lacked necessary details about the seized material and its nexus with the assessee's income. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to make submissions. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from its earlier decision in the connected case of Sh. Sanjay Jindal (ITA Nos. 8511 to 8516/Del/2019) decided on 21st December, 2023. The core of the decision was that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C was not in accordance with law. Specifically, it was found that the satisfaction note did not refer to any particular seized material belonging to the assessee, nor did it specify the assessment years to which the seized materials related. Furthermore, it did not explain how the seized materials were incriminating in nature. The Tribunal affirmed the view of the learned first appellate authority that the satisfaction note was vague, bland, and bereft of necessary reasoning, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society. The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 153C(1) by substituting 'belonging to' with 'pertaining to' did not negate the ratio laid down in Sinhgad Technical Education Society. The Tribunal also found that the additions made were not sustainable as they were not based on any incriminating materials found during search and seizure operations, and that the additions made to the assessee's income did not have any relation or nexus with the seized materials. The Tribunal further noted that in the case of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd., the Tribunal had previously held that purchases from the assessee's proprietary concern were genuine and the seized materials relating to these purchases were not incriminating. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the section 153C proceedings were non-est in the eyes of law, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and rendering the assessee's cross-objections infructuous.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of transponder fees to the First Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication, citing principles of consistency and the need for further evidence. For license fees, the Tribunal noted the appellant's acceptance of amortization under Section 35ABB and referred the additional claim for amortization to the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal directed the waiver of interest under Section 234B and allowed grounds related to computation of tax payable, including brought forward losses and MAT credit.

The Tribunal noted that there was no discussion or evidence in the lower authorities' orders to establish that the assessee had transferred any capital asset. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the addition of short-term capital gains of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- lacked corroborative evidence and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering that the assessee was not heard by the CIT(A) and the grounds of appeal were not properly adjudicated, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from its earlier decision in the connected case of Sh. Sanjay Jindal (ITA Nos. 8511 to 8516/Del/2019) decided on 21st December, 2023. The core of the decision was that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer under section 153C was not in accordance with law. Specifically, it was found that the satisfaction note did not refer to any particular seized material belonging to the assessee, nor did it specify the assessment years to which the seized materials related. Furthermore, it did not explain how the seized materials were incriminating in nature. The Tribunal affirmed the view of the learned first appellate authority that the satisfaction note was vague, bland, and bereft of necessary reasoning, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society. The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 153C(1) by substituting 'belonging to' with 'pertaining to' did not negate the ratio laid down in Sinhgad Technical Education Society. The Tribunal also found that the additions made were not sustainable as they were not based on any incriminating materials found during search and seizure operations, and that the additions made to the assessee's income did not have any relation or nexus with the seized materials. The Tribunal further noted that in the case of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd., the Tribunal had previously held that purchases from the assessee's proprietary concern were genuine and the seized materials relating to these purchases were not incriminating. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the section 153C proceedings were non-est in the eyes of law, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and rendering the assessee's cross-objections infructuous.

The Tribunal held that for the issue of deletion of addition on account of interest income (Issue 1), the matter was already decided in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench in its own case for AY 2010-11 to 2013-14. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had deleted similar disallowances based on the availability of sufficient interest-free funds, citing judgments like Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. As there was no change in facts, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, dismissing this ground of appeal. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A (Issue 2), the Tribunal found that the assessee had dividend and exempt interest income and had suo motu disallowed Rs. 8,17,040/-. The AO's satisfaction under Section 14A(ii) was considered valid. However, following the Coordinate Bench's decision for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance by considering only dividend-yielding investments, thus partly allowing this ground of appeal. For the deletion of addition on account of reversal of provision for doubtful debts (Issue 3), the Tribunal observed that the assessee had demonstrated that provisions made in preceding years were offered for tax. The reversal of excess provision was claimed as a deduction, and the Tribunal found that adding it back would amount to double taxation. Citing the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance and the consistency in treatment in AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed this ground of appeal. The appeals for AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21 were decided mutatis mutandis.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had followed judicial consistency from previous assessment years and the Tribunal's own adjudications regarding similar issues. Finding no factual or legal distinction, the Tribunal upheld the impugned action of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in deleting the additions. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the sales declared by the assessee and failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal noted that the AO computed the disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 37(1) by invoking the methodology provided in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal held that Rule 8D(2) can only be invoked if the AO is satisfied that the assessee has incurred expenses to earn exempt income. Since it was an accepted position that the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the AO's action in computing the disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) using Rule 8D(2) was patently wrong. Furthermore, for disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), a nexus must be established between borrowed funds and the investment made. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had installed a wind power plant using funds borrowed from financial institutions, and this had no relationship with the investment made in non-convertible preference shares in group concerns. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, supporting the argument that the investment was not made out of borrowed funds. The disallowance of INR 15 Lakhs under Section 37(1) was also deleted as it was wrongly calculated by applying Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Tribunal concluded that the disallowances were bad in law and deleted them, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) decided the issue without proper appreciation of facts and that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not participating. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) decided the issue without proper appreciation of the facts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not participating before the CIT(E), as their non-compliance was due to not receiving any notice, which was beyond their control. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issues afresh after allowing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after the assessee provides the necessary information/documents. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had decided the issue without appreciating the facts and that the assessee had reasonable cause for not participating. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons reasonable. It held that the CIT(E) decided the issue without proper appreciation of facts and directed the CIT(E) to decide the issues afresh after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine, supported by proper documentation and traded on a recognized stock exchange. The AO failed to provide any material to suggest the assessee or her broker were involved in dubious transactions.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground regarding the validity of reopening based on the prescribed authority's approval has merit. It found that the approval was granted in a mechanical manner, lacking due application of mind, and thus quashed the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that for the issue of deletion of addition on account of interest income (Issue 1), the matter was already decided in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench in its own case for AY 2010-11 to 2013-14. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had deleted similar disallowances based on the availability of sufficient interest-free funds, citing judgments like Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. As there was no change in facts, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, dismissing this ground of appeal. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A (Issue 2), the Tribunal found that the assessee had dividend and exempt interest income and had suo motu disallowed Rs. 8,17,040/-. The AO's satisfaction under Section 14A(ii) was considered valid. However, following the Coordinate Bench's decision for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance by considering only dividend-yielding investments, thus partly allowing this ground of appeal. For the deletion of addition on account of reversal of provision for doubtful debts (Issue 3), the Tribunal observed that the assessee had demonstrated that provisions made in preceding years were offered for tax. The reversal of excess provision was claimed as a deduction, and the Tribunal found that adding it back would amount to double taxation. Citing the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance and the consistency in treatment in AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed this ground of appeal. The appeals for AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21 were decided mutatis mutandis.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of revenue expenditure under Section 35(2AB) should be tested under Section 35(1) of the Act, and restored this issue to the AO. Regarding the duty drawback, the Tribunal found that the amount was recognized in a subsequent year and the addition was unsustainable, setting it aside.

The Tribunal held that for the issue of deletion of addition on account of interest income (Issue 1), the matter was already decided in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench in its own case for AY 2010-11 to 2013-14. The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had deleted similar disallowances based on the availability of sufficient interest-free funds, citing judgments like Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. As there was no change in facts, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, dismissing this ground of appeal. Regarding the disallowance under Section 14A (Issue 2), the Tribunal found that the assessee had dividend and exempt interest income and had suo motu disallowed Rs. 8,17,040/-. The AO's satisfaction under Section 14A(ii) was considered valid. However, following the Coordinate Bench's decision for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance by considering only dividend-yielding investments, thus partly allowing this ground of appeal. For the deletion of addition on account of reversal of provision for doubtful debts (Issue 3), the Tribunal observed that the assessee had demonstrated that provisions made in preceding years were offered for tax. The reversal of excess provision was claimed as a deduction, and the Tribunal found that adding it back would amount to double taxation. Citing the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance and the consistency in treatment in AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and dismissed this ground of appeal. The appeals for AYs 2018-19 and 2020-21 were decided mutatis mutandis.

The Tribunal decided to allow the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's stated ground that the appeal was filed by mistake, having inadvertently filed two appeals for the same case. The Revenue's Sr. DR did not oppose this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No other issues were decided, and no specific relief was granted beyond the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by Dash Enterprises were not managerial in nature. Furthermore, the compensation paid for these services rendered outside India was not taxable in India, making the TDS provisions inapplicable. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had successfully settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, by fulfilling all stipulated conditions and making the required payment.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessments were invalid. It was held that since the assessment years were "unabated" and no additions were made, the assessments should be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO on account of capital introduction by one partner was not warranted based on the provided evidence. It also found that the additions related to unsecured loans were unsustainable as the assessee had provided confirmations, bank statements, and repaid the loans.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 were vitiated because the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 148 were not met. Specifically, an assessment under Section 153A had already been made, and the reassessment was initiated after four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that the cash deposits of INR 2,43,330/- were received from his father could not be accepted. The Tribunal noted that the father's only source of cash was a monthly contribution of INR 12,000/- from the assessee and his two brothers, which was used for their day-to-day expenses. The Tribunal found it unacceptable that the father could have accumulated INR 3,67,400/- after meeting these expenses, especially when cash was given to the assessee almost on a monthly basis, exceeding the father's monthly receipts. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld.CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of INR 2,43,330/- as unexplained cash deposits under section 69 of the Act. Regarding the interest under section 234B, the judgment does not explicitly state a finding or reasoning, but the dismissal of the appeal implies it was upheld. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp message, being a digital record, was inadmissible as evidence without a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. There was also a lack of corroborative evidence and discrepancies with the assessee's audited books.