ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was bad in law as the assessment years in question fell outside the permissible block assessment period as per the amended provisions and settled judicial precedents.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning deductions on interest income and foreign exchange gains, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with directions to allow TDS credit and dismissal of the additional ground on dividend distribution tax.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple cases and assessment years on the same day. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for agricultural income and that the property claimed for capital gains deduction was not agricultural land due to its proximity to a municipality and the presence of a dwelling unit. The deletion of sampling expenses was also found justified.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple cases and assessment years on the same day. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was valid due to some matching cheque transactions, the addition of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- was unsustainable. This was because the primary document relied upon was an unsigned, undated draft agreement, and the AO failed to provide evidence of actual cash payment or cross-examine the vendor.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not granted for each assessment year and each assessee separately, violating the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessments framed were quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning deductions on interest income and foreign exchange gains, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with directions to allow TDS credit and dismissal of the additional ground on dividend distribution tax.

The Tribunal held that the loan receipt lacked corroborative evidence and the assessee's denial and explanation of capital introduction were sufficient. The addition of Rs. 22,50,000 as unexplained income was deleted. The addition of Rs. 25,000 for capital contribution to a partnership firm was also deleted as it was duly reflected in the books of account.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not granted for each assessment year and each assessee separately, violating the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessments framed were quashed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple cases and assessment years on the same day. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not granted for each assessment year and each assessee separately, violating the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessments framed were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to 'on money' and inflated purchases, finding insufficient evidence. However, it sustained additions on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) to the extent of distributable profits of the lending companies.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not granted for each assessment year and each assessee separately, violating the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessments framed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not granted for each assessment year and each assessee separately, violating the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessments framed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was illegal as the addition was made solely on the basis of a third-party statement without corroborative material or compliance with Section 153C. The assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple cases and assessment years on the same day. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the issue back to the AO, granting the assessee another opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposits.

Following precedents set by coordinate Benches on similar consolidated approvals for the Nagpal group, the Tribunal found the approval under Section 153D to be deficient as it did not reflect the examination of individual assessment records. Consequently, the ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the impugned assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to 'on money' and inflated purchases, finding that the AO's additions were based on presumptions without sufficient evidence. However, it sustained additions related to unsecured loans treated as deemed dividends to the extent of distributable profits.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash sales was unsustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and the AO had not conducted a proper examination. Regarding the undervaluation of closing stock, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm a 5% addition, noting that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the revaluation.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for a 10-day delay without condoning it. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation as per Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that income from domain registration services is not royalty income as per the DTAA. Similarly, web hosting services do not fall under the definition of royalty as per the DTAA and are independent of domain registration services.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was crucial for deciding the case. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and decide the appeal afresh.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that the double claim of depreciation was a clerical error and not a willful concealment or malafide intention to evade taxes, relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the TPO's rectification order reduced the adjustment to NIL and the AO was yet to pass a consequential order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not granted for each assessment year and each assessee separately, violating the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessments framed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not granted for each assessment year and each assessee separately, violating the statutory provisions. Consequently, the assessments framed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for making additions were not corroborated by independent evidence and were akin to 'dumb documents'. The addition on account of jewellery was also found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) cannot be the sole basis for an addition without corroborating material. Since the surrendered income was not supported by any incriminating documents found during the search and was subsequently retracted, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds, finding that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple cases and assessment years on the same day. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law. This was due to the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third-party witness and the lack of full and true disclosure of material facts for reopening beyond four years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without serving the notice under Section 148 of the Act to the correct address of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty order, as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the lower authorities regarding the POCM was essentially a timing difference. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's second ground of appeal concerning the addition, subject to a direction for reduction in the final year of project completion to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine and grant TDS credit in the year the corresponding income is shown.

The Tribunal held that the block assessment period for an 'other person' under Section 153C is determined from the date of handing over of incriminating material and recording of satisfaction. The assessment years in question fell beyond the permissible block assessment period.

The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of receipt of seized material by the jurisdictional AO, not the date of search. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without serving the mandatory notice under Section 148 of the Act to the assessee's correct address. Since the notice was not served, the assessment order and the subsequent penalty order cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the block assessment period for an 'other person' under Section 153C is determined from the date of recording satisfaction and receiving records. Since the notices were issued on September 26, 2019, the relevant assessment years for the assessee fall outside the permissible block assessment period.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was beyond jurisdiction and bad in law. This was due to the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the third-party witness and the lack of full and true disclosure of material facts for reopening beyond four years.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs.26,360/- for software expenses due to lack of documentary evidence. However, the addition of Rs.12,87,449/- was found to be erroneous as the CIT(A) failed to provide a definite finding or cogent documents to establish it as unexplained.

The Tribunal observed that the disallowance of gratuity was based on a factual error in the statement of facts regarding the deposit date, which was inadvertently mentioned as 2022 instead of 2021. Similarly, the disallowance of PF and ESI contributions stemmed from a typographical error in the tax audit report regarding the due date. The Tribunal found that these issues were factually corroborated but required verification by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to 'on money' and inflated purchases, finding insufficient evidence. However, it partly allowed the appeal regarding unsecured loans treated as deemed dividend, to the extent of distributable profits.

The Tribunal held that the grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee were not sustainable due to the lack of assistance rendered by the assessee before the Tribunal, mirroring the Ld. CIT(A)'s reasoning. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54 was not admissible as the purchase of the new residential property occurred prior to the sale of the original asset, violating the conditions for the deduction. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had failed to disclose other LTCG related to penny stocks.

The Tribunal held that the allocation of expenses in the ratio of sales to eligible projects was upheld, consistent with previous decisions. For the Notional Annual Letting Value issue, the matter was partly allowed, remanding the issue of farm lands to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the proportionate allocation of expenses to eligible projects was upheld based on previous decisions. For the Notional Annual Letting Value of farm lands, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the allocation of expenses in the ratio of sales to eligible projects was upheld, consistent with previous decisions. For the Notional Annual Letting Value issue, the matter was partly allowed, remanding the issue of farm lands to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the allocation of expenses in the ratio of sales to eligible projects was upheld, consistent with previous decisions. For the Notional Annual Letting Value issue, the matter was partly allowed, remanding the issue of farm lands to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the allocation of expenses in the ratio of sales to eligible projects was upheld, consistent with previous decisions. For the Notional Annual Letting Value issue, the matter was partly allowed, remanding the issue of farm lands to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the proportionate allocation of expenses to eligible projects was upheld based on previous decisions. For the Notional Annual Letting Value of farm lands, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination.