ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The reassessment order dated March 23, 2022, was passed after the issue of capital gains on the sale of land was extensively inquired into during the reassessment proceedings, including the issuance of a notice under Section 148 and a show-cause notice regarding capital gains, to which the assessee had filed a reply. Therefore, the view taken by the Assessing Officer (AO) was a possible view. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, which states that for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263(1), the order of the AO must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had applied his mind to the issue of capital gains, making his order not erroneous. Consequently, the PCIT's action was unsustainable in law and illegal. The impugned order of the PCIT was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal restored the issues of cess, CSR, and seismic study expenditures to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine past treatment and ensure consistency. The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D was upheld.

The Tribunal held that initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act during the pendency of Section 154 proceedings is not permissible. The Supreme Court's decision in S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd. was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including the lender's financial statements, bank statements, and confirmation, to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and source of the loan. The AO's addition was based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions and a Special Bench ruling. It held that supplementary rent for aircraft leases is not taxable in India as per the India-Ireland DTAA and Section 10(15A) of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the notice under Section 148 was indeed invalid due to improper service. The AO's ITBA system records indicated that the email was not sent, and physical records of service could not be traced.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act before completing the reassessment. This failure vitiated the entire proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions and a Special Bench ruling. It held that supplementary rent for aircraft leases is not taxable in India as per the India-Ireland DTAA and Section 10(15A) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 29.07.2022 was indeed barred by limitation as per the prevailing judicial pronouncements. Consequently, the reassessment order was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had acquired the property within the extended period allowed for construction under Section 54F. Regarding the addition under Section 69B, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not required to maintain books of account and the difference was explained as various charges paid through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the factual position for the assessment year under appeal is identical to the preceding assessment years for which decisions were rendered in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal respectfully followed its coordinate bench's decision and the Delhi High Court's affirmation, concluding that the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, neither a fixed place PE nor a supervisory PE. Specifically, regarding the fixed place PE, the Tribunal found that the sale of goods, consideration, and title transfer occurred outside India, and no operations related to the supply of raw materials and capital goods were carried out in India. For supervisory PE, the Tribunal examined the services rendered by the assessee's employees in India and concluded that these were technical assistance and support services, not supervisory activities in connection with a building site, construction, installation, or assembly project as required by Article 5(4) of the India-Japan DTAA. Since no PE was established, the issue of profit attribution to the PE did not arise. Consequently, the addition made by the AO attributing a part of the income to the alleged PE was deleted. Ground of appeal No. 11 regarding interest under Section 234B was considered consequential and not adjudicated. Ground No. 12 regarding penalty under Section 270A was dismissed as premature. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file the audit report along with the return of income is directory, not mandatory. The assessee was entitled to claim the deduction as the report was filed along with the revised return, which was within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 29.07.2022 was indeed barred by limitation as per the prevailing judicial pronouncements. Consequently, the reassessment order was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order for that year was quashed, rendering other grounds academic. For other assessment years, certain grounds were allowed for statistical purposes, and directions were given for verification of tax rates and TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the AO failed to supply the relied-upon material to the assessee. The failure to provide this material, as per the Delhi High Court's ruling in Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, vitiates the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's reliance on Explanation 2 and 6 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was misplaced, citing Delhi High Court decisions. The court ruled that the 'process' in the explanation pertains to transmission by satellite or similar technology, not the mere licensing of broadcasting rights where the transmission is done by another party.

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 held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of cash deposits and upheld the addition. However, concerning the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal noted that no exempt income was earned by the assessee and directed the deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted relevant information and that the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the applications were not justified. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a virtual hearing and passing an order without affording adequate opportunity. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the details filed by the assessee, including CERC regulations and the expert opinion, and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee must provide all necessary details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted relevant information and that the orders of the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting the applications were not justified. The matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

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 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 AO mechanically rejected the Section 154 application without discussion and reasoning, and that the addition of Rs.3,92,66,722/- was based on an incorrect calculation of the percentage of completion. The Tribunal also held that the addition of Rs.14,386/- under Section 36(1)(a) was wrongly invoked for the assessment year 2017-18 as the relevant Finance Act provision was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT (Central) did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions for 'specified violations' were introduced from April 1, 2022, and could not be applied retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT (Central) did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions for 'specified violations' were introduced from April 1, 2022, and could not be applied retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT (Central) did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration under Section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions for 'specified violations' were introduced from April 1, 2022, and could not be applied retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction for filing an appeal lies with the High Court and ITAT of the region where the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order. Therefore, the appeal filed before ITAT, Delhi was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D of the Act was consolidated for multiple assessees and multiple assessment years, which violates the mandatory provision of granting approval for each assessment year separately. The Tribunal found this to be a mechanical exercise without due application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D of the Act was consolidated for multiple assessees and multiple assessment years, which violates the mandatory provision of granting approval for each assessment year separately. The Tribunal found this to be a mechanical exercise without due application of mind.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation that the cash was accumulated from past withdrawals from their own accounts to be acceptable. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was quashed as bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessee with an inspector's report and an opportunity to explain the drastic reduction in cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition. It observed that the AO did not adequately examine the bank statements provided by the assessee and failed to verify the genuineness of the transactions, relying solely on STR information.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and did not adjudicate upon or consider any of the assessee's submissions in its ex-parte order, which was described as cryptic. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence without providing an opportunity for a hearing, citing non-submission during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not asked to submit these details during the assessment and was under the bona fide belief that no further information was required. Citing precedents like 'Shri Nisarhusen Amdali Lakhani' and 'FR. Sauter AG vs. CIT', the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the AO for denovo consideration. The assessee is permitted to file evidence before the AO, who shall consider it while framing the denovo assessment. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of Rs. 8,00,000/- of the addition. Therefore, the addition was further restricted to Rs. 3,97,150/-.

The Tribunal held that a notice or other document issued under the Income Tax Act must be signed physically or digitally by the concerned authority to have legal effect, as per Section 282A(1) of the Act. Since the notice in question was not signed, it lacked legal force.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Tribunal held that while courts have ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 234E prior to the specified date, the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Tribunal held that while courts have ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 234E prior to the specified date, the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor. The Tribunal found that the AO had failed to bring any material on record to disprove the genuineness of the transaction. Relying on the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 417 (SC), the Tribunal held that once the assessee proves the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, the onus shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise. As the revenue failed to discharge this onus, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure of ₹1,00,00,000/- was indeed a capital expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that the expenditure was incurred for the purpose of acquiring an enduring benefit for the assessee's business. This aligns with the established principle that expenditures creating a capital asset or providing a lasting advantage are treated as capital in nature. The Tribunal found that the nature of the expenditure was not for day-to-day running of the business but for enhancing the business's long-term capacity or structure. Therefore, it was not deductible as a revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The ratio decidendi is that expenditures that create an enduring benefit or are for the acquisition of a capital asset are capital in nature and not deductible. The operative direction is to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Tribunal held that while courts have ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 234E prior to the specified date, the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Tribunal held that while courts have ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 234E prior to the specified date, the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Tribunal held that while courts have ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 234E prior to the specified date, the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Tribunal held that while courts have ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 234E prior to the specified date, the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeals for delay without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain. The Tribunal held that while courts have ruled in favour of the assessee regarding Section 234E prior to the specified date, the primary issue was the procedural lapse by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable when the cash deposits are recorded in the books of account, which were audited. Since the assessee's cash deposits were duly recorded and supported by its audited books, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee could not utilize the capital gains for acquiring the new property due to reasons beyond their control (builder's default), the deduction under Section 54 should not be disturbed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to Section 143(1)(a) for a debatable issue regarding belated PF/ESI contributions. Consequently, the disallowances made under Section 36(1)(va) were set aside. The grounds related to double additions were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to Section 143(1)(a) for a debatable issue regarding belated PF/ESI contributions. Consequently, the disallowances made under Section 36(1)(va) were set aside. The grounds related to double additions were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.