ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

As there are no facts or issues presented, the tribunal's decision cannot be determined from this text.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and by failing to provide proper opportunity. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as there was no exempt income. The addition under Section 115JB was restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO's belief of escapement of income was based on incorrect facts, specifically regarding the investor's means and the filing of the assessee's return. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the case was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition of loans as they represented bank advances confirmed by bank statements. The denial of exemption was also set aside as the assessee had consistently received it in past and future years.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court has settled the issue regarding JAO's authority to issue notices u/s 148, confirming its validity. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide sufficient justification for treating the opening stock as unexplained investment, especially since the sales were accepted as genuine.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that taxing the same amount twice under different heads (as purchases and then as unexplained money from sales) was not legally justified. It directed that a percentage of total credits in a bank account be considered as profits, and other additions be deleted. The issue of a deposit in another bank account was remitted to the AO.

The Tribunal observed that the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had quashed the additions/demands against both M/s Trikoot Iron and Steel Ltd. and the assessee in related excise proceedings. As the income tax additions were solely based on these now-quashed excise findings, the ITAT concluded there was no basis to sustain the additions. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(25)(ii) was admissible and should not be denied solely because of a clerical error in filling out the ITR. The Tribunal allowed the exemption, following precedents that permit entertaining claims not initially raised or incorrectly presented in the ITR.

The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the First Appellate Authority conducted sufficient inquiry into the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(25)(ii) was admissible and should not be denied solely because of a clerical error in filling out the ITR. The Tribunal allowed the exemption, following precedents that permit entertaining claims not initially raised or incorrectly presented in the ITR.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the claims during the original and reassessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that additions based on documents not found from the assessee's possession or not bearing their name are not sustainable. However, a portion of the income related to a specific store was sustained.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to explain observations made during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to explain observations made during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to explain observations made during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to explain observations made during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 and for out-of-books sales could not be made in the hands of the individual assessee if the documents were seized from the premises of the Rama Group of companies and did not bear the assessee's name or signature.

The Tribunal deleted additions made under Section 68 and for out-of-books sales, stating that the documents found during the search did not belong to the assessee and were not found from their possession. The Tribunal also deleted an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs related to a prior year's addition.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based on suspicion and surmises, lacking tangible material. It found no "reason to believe" as required by Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were based on suspicion and surmises, lacking tangible material. It found no "reason to believe" as required by Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to explain observations made during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to explain observations made during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to explain observations made during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that while the AO had recorded satisfaction, the disallowance under Section 14A should only consider investments that yielded exempt income. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance based on this principle.

The Tribunal held that pre-operative expenses incurred for expansion of existing business and customer acquisition costs are revenue in nature and therefore allowable. The nomenclature of the expense does not determine its allowability.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's findings were not based on adequate material or legal reasoning. The Tribunal found that withdrawals from the capital account were not income, the receivables/creditors ratio was explained by business operations, and the source of funds had been examined by the AO. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's order was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary did not have the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee and was not habitually engaged in securing orders. Therefore, it did not constitute a DAPE under the India-USA DTAA.

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the CIT(A)'s finding that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were bad in law, those findings attained finality. Consequently, there was no necessity to decide the additions made in the reassessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to the AO's borrowed satisfaction. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the AO failed to establish that the advances received by the assessee were bogus or represented the assessee's own re-routed funds.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues of additions back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to be decided afresh after providing the assessee with reasonable opportunities of being heard. The issue of penalty under section 271AAC was dismissed as premature.

The Assessing Officer held that the assessee's apportionment of 5% royalty and 95% exempt income was flawed. The Tribunal likely upheld the AO's view that the consideration was for more than just live feed, encompassing rights to use recorded content and other associated rights.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of expenses written off as the assessee failed to prove material receipt by the client. However, it allowed a partial disallowance for site/contract labour expenses and travelling/conveyance expenses.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated mechanically without proper application of mind by the AO and competent authority. The grounds raised by the assessee in their cross-objections were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary did not have the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee and was not habitually engaged in securing orders. Therefore, it did not constitute a DAPE under the India-USA DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable and educational, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various ITAT benches. It followed the principle of consistency, noting that exemption was granted for many years without change in circumstances.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 out of the seized cash, finding the assessee's explanation for furniture and fittings to be unsubstantiated. However, the Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 2,50,000, allowing a saving for the assessee.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting that the assessee had opted to settle tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The assessee was granted liberty to re-institute the appeal if the dispute was not resolved under the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessment should have been completed under Section 153C of the Act, not Section 143(3), as it was based on documents found during a search. The AO incorrectly defined the block period for assessment. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) sustaining the assessment under Section 143(3) were not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was indeed beyond the period of limitation. The extended period for issuing notices, as provided by the TOLA, was not correctly accounted for by the Assessing Officer, leading to the expiry of the limitation period before the notice was issued.

The Tribunal held that the addition of INR 8,26,879/- on account of notional interest on the HSBC Geneva account was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the bank statement, while matching client details, showed an opening balance of only USD 8,599.72, contrary to the AO's calculation based on USD 4,07,651.17. More importantly, the bank statement indicated no interest was credited; instead, maintenance charges totaling USD 1391.51 were debited, resulting in a nil balance by November 2011. The Tribunal found no basis for estimating interest income. Regarding jewellery, the Tribunal allowed the claim for 375.20 grams as a gift from the mother-in-law and accepted the purchase of 1621.140 grams based on cash withdrawals and bank statements, supported by CBDT instructions and High Court judgments, deeming 700 grams explained. Consequently, all jewellery found was held as explained, and the addition of INR 1,01,52,902/- was directed to be deleted. As the additions on merits were deleted, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held to have no basis and was dismissed. Grounds related to limitation were dismissed as the AO's action was not barred by limitation due to an extension under Explanation (9) to Section 158B.

The Tribunal held that the addition of INR 8,26,879/- on account of notional interest on the HSBC Geneva account was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the bank statement, while matching client details, showed an opening balance of only USD 8,599.72, contrary to the AO's calculation based on USD 4,07,651.17. More importantly, the bank statement indicated no interest was credited; instead, maintenance charges totaling USD 1391.51 were debited, resulting in a nil balance by November 2011. The Tribunal found no basis for estimating interest income. Regarding jewellery, the Tribunal allowed the claim for 375.20 grams as a gift from the mother-in-law and accepted the purchase of 1621.140 grams based on cash withdrawals and bank statements, supported by CBDT instructions and High Court judgments, deeming 700 grams explained. Consequently, all jewellery found was held as explained, and the addition of INR 1,01,52,902/- was directed to be deleted. As the additions on merits were deleted, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held to have no basis and was dismissed. Grounds related to limitation were dismissed as the AO's action was not barred by limitation due to an extension under Explanation (9) to Section 158B.