ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the cash sales were duly reflected in the assessee's books of accounts and VAT returns, and the stock inventory supported these sales. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), as the cash deposits were sourced from disclosed cash sales, and making an addition would result in double taxation.

The Tribunal noted that the earlier appeal concerning Section 80G was remanded. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to furnish necessary evidence for registration under Section 12A, remanding the matter back to the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits, after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present documentary evidence and comply with the notices. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the objects of the trust deed were indeed charitable in nature. The assessee's activities, including skill training and partnerships, were found to be charitable. The denial of registration by the CIT(E) was therefore unjustified.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision, allowed the appeal regarding disallowance of freight charges, stating that suspicion alone is not enough to disallow expenses without proper inquiry. For interest expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, making the disallowance unjustified. For certain other grounds, the appeals were partly allowed or remanded.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance u/s 14A can be made if no exempt income was received, and the CBDT circular relied upon by the PCIT is not applicable retrospectively. Regarding TDS mismatch, the Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently follows the POCM method, leading to a natural mismatch, and the AO had accepted the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merit, directing the assessee to provide proper documentary evidence and cooperate with the authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were ex-parte and not speaking.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details and evidence, and to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal condoned the 1137-day delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others. On the substantive issue, the tribunal directed the assessing authority to ensure that no double addition of salary income is made in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the objects of the trust deed clearly indicate charitable activities. The assessee's explanation regarding the management fee as a recovery of operational costs and the timing of agreements was accepted. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration under section 12A and consequently exemption under section 80G.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of freight charges was not justified without proper inquiry into the nature of business and financials, relying on a coordinate bench decision. The Tribunal also held that if the assessee has interest-free funds available in the business, the AO cannot disallow the entire finance cost.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back for a fresh decision. The assessee was granted another opportunity to produce all required details and evidences.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted liberty to produce all relevant documents and evidence, and both parties were to be given an opportunity.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence, noting that while the assessee did not comply with notices, it was in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is applicable only when sums are found credited in the assessee's own books. Since the cash deposits were in the accounts of other companies and not in the assessee's books, Section 68 was not applicable. The Tribunal relied on various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. P. Mohankala.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice due to potential communication gaps.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the possibility of communication gaps, restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing at their risk.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidences filed by the assessee were crucial and went to the root of the matter. The CIT(A) was directed to admit these documents and decide the appeal on merits after providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 69A was well-reasoned, as the assessee demonstrated sufficient cash balance and explained deposits as withdrawals. The Tribunal also found merit in deleting the addition under Section 69C, stating that a loss is not an expenditure and the Revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s direction to allow set-off of commodity trading loss.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish all necessary details and evidence for registration under Sections 12A and 80G.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce all details and evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and bonafide reasons. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all necessary details.

The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on a mechanical approval from the prescribed authority under section 151, which was not rebutted by the department. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the grounds related to the disallowance of freight charges were to be allowed, following a coordinate bench decision that suspicion alone was not sufficient to disallow expenses without proper inquiry. For interest expenses, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and allowed the appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act must not be a mere formality but must involve due application of mind. Approvals granted mechanically, without proper application of mind for each assessment year, vitiate the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty was unsustainable. The claim for leave encashment was considered debatable and made on a provisional basis with bona fides, and therefore, the penalty should not have been imposed.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act is applicable only when sums are found credited in the books of the assessee. Since the cash deposits were in the books of other companies and not the assessee's books, Section 68 was not applicable. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents to support this view.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals in part. The disallowances related to Section 80IC and 10AA were deleted based on earlier decisions in the assessee's own case. Disallowances for foreign travelling and club expenses were restricted. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was granted in a single letter for multiple assessment years and on the same day. Such an approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the larger interest of justice. It was held that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not adequately present their case before the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and provide necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the application for registration was not justified and that the matter should be remanded back for consideration of documents. The assessee's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.