ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient material to prove the genuineness of the expenditure or the bogus nature of the creditors. The creditors had offered the income in their returns, and TDS was deducted by the assessee. A coordinate bench decision on similar facts also upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the commission payment was established by documentary evidence and banking channels, and therefore the addition was not justified. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for deduction under Section 54, following a precedent where substantial payment within the prescribed period was considered sufficient compliance.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that Sections 12A, 12AB, and 80G are welfare legislations. Considering the intent of these provisions and recent amendments/circulars, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that Sections 12A, 12AB, and 80G are welfare legislations. Considering the intent of these provisions and recent amendments/circulars, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the search warrant was not issued in the assessee's name and the panchnama was drawn in the name of other individuals. Therefore, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed void.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the search warrant was not issued in the assessee's name and the panchnama was drawn in the name of other individuals. Therefore, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed void.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the search warrant was not issued in the assessee's name and the panchnama was drawn in the name of other individuals. Therefore, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed void.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the search warrant was not issued in the assessee's name and the panchnama was drawn in the name of other individuals. Therefore, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed void.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the search warrant was not issued in the assessee's name and the panchnama was drawn in the name of other individuals. Therefore, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed void.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to fully explain the source of the cash deposits, the department also did not adequately consider all the submitted evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal confirmed a reduced portion of the addition and provided relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Upon reviewing the evidence, including an affidavit, the Tribunal found the explanation for the time gap to be genuine and the source of cash transactions to be established and fully explained.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 54F, the new asset must be purchased in the assessee's name, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The explanation for cash deposits was also found unsubstantiated and rejected.

The Tribunal noted that neither party fully explained their case. While the assessee failed to adequately explain the source of deposits, the department could not outright disregard all evidence. The Tribunal decided to confirm the addition but restricted it to Rs. 1,00,000/-, not as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record objective satisfaction with cogent reasons to dispute the assessee's suo moto disallowance. The AO did not identify any specific expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions mandating such satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record objective satisfaction with cogent reasons to dispute the assessee's suo moto disallowance. The AO did not identify any specific expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions mandating such satisfaction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 93 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the lack of knowledge on the part of the legal heirs due to the assessee's death. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the sections are welfare-oriented. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application, condone any delay as per the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac), and decide the issues afresh.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the sections are welfare-oriented. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application, condone any delay as per the proviso to section 12A(1)(ac), and decide the issues afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the principle that such delays should be condoned to allow for adjudication on merits, following the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The impugned order of the NFAC was reversed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause and that the rejection was made without providing an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite repeated notices. The assessee requested the matter to be sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back for a fresh decision.

For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal held that the AO failed to record objective satisfaction as mandated by Section 14A(3) and Rule 8D(1) before applying Rule 8D, making the disallowance unsustainable. For the Section 68 addition, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of cash from the AOP, establishing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal restricted the commission income taxed in Jindal's hands and directed telescoping of other additions against commission and long-term capital gains. The additions made in the hands of the other entities for credits and commission income were deleted as they were pass-through entities and the income was taxed in Jindal's hands.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient material to prove the genuineness of the expenditure or the bogus nature of the creditors. The creditors had offered the income in their returns, and TDS was deducted by the assessee. A coordinate bench decision on similar facts also upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient material to prove the genuineness of the expenditure or the bogus nature of the creditors. The creditors had offered the income in their returns, and TDS was deducted by the assessee. A coordinate bench decision on similar facts also upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to ABN AMBRO Bank under Section 40(a)(i) was unjustified. It noted that the assessee had acted bonafide, relying on the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) provided by ABN AMBRO. The Tribunal followed the decision in CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. and accepted the assessee's plea of bonafide ignorance. It was held that the TRC is sufficient evidence of residency in a contracting state, and the assessee had no reason to doubt it. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had failed to consider the assessee's plea of bonafide as directed by the Tribunal in the first round. Regarding roaming charges, the Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unjustified. It relied on the decisions in CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. and CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., which held that roaming charges paid between telecom service providers are not 'fees for technical services' and therefore, no TDS was deductible under Section 194J. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department had accepted this position in similar cases, making it inequitable to challenge it now. Consequently, the findings of the CIT(A) on the roaming charges issue were reversed.

The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Regarding the disallowance of interest paid to ABN Amro Bank, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance after considering the assessee's plea of bonafide ignorance, supported by the TRC and relevant CBDT circulars and case law. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition. For the disallowance of roaming charges, the Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to other telecom operators for roaming charges were not 'technical services' and therefore, no Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was required under Section 194J of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd., CIT vs. Vodafone South Ltd., and CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., which had held similar payments not to be technical services. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue had accepted the position in the Vodafone South Ltd. case and could not challenge it now for other assessees without just cause. Consequently, the findings of the CIT(A) on the roaming charges issue were reversed, and the Revenue's ground of appeal on this point was dismissed. The assessee's appeal on this point was allowed. The operative directions were to allow the assessee's appeal and partly allow the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to ABN AMBRO Bank was unjustified as the assessee acted bonafide based on the Tax Residency Certificate. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance of roaming charges was unjustified as they were not considered technical services.

The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the identical grounds raised for both assessment years. Regarding the disallowance of interest paid to ABN AMBRO Bank under Section 40(a)(i), the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance, accepting the assessee's plea of bonafide ignorance based on the TRC provided by ABN AMBRO Bank. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision, particularly in light of the reliance on CIT vs. Nestle India Ltd. and CBDT Circular No. 789. The Tribunal held that the TRC was sufficient evidence for the assessee to believe there was no tax withholding obligation. For the disallowance of roaming charges under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s findings. Citing decisions in CIT vs. Bharti Cellular Ltd. and CIT vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., the Tribunal held that the payment of interconnect/roaming charges to other telecom operators did not necessitate TDS deduction under Section 194J as they were not considered 'technical services'. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department had accepted a similar position in the case of Vodafone South Ltd. and therefore could not challenge it now. The disallowance was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was not attributable to the assessee and was minor (six days). Following various High Court decisions, the requirement of filing the report was considered directory, not mandatory, especially when substantial compliance was made and the legislature allowed for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the books of accounts and disturbing the declared GP rate, especially since the assessee had explained the reasons for losses and the bank had obtained a due diligence report supporting these reasons. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the assessee had opted to settle the issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the scheme application failed to mature.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the proper approval from the appropriate authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, given that the assessment year was beyond three years. Therefore, the notice and the consequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the intimation order passed under Section 143(1) was bad in law because it was made without affording the assessee the statutory 30-day period to respond, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the disallowance made was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the notice within the limitation period is crucial for jurisdiction. Since the notice was issued beyond the limitation period, the entire assessment superstructure is deemed to crumble. Therefore, the assessment order and the additions made are directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a resident of South Africa and the funds received from a non-resident, if not taxable under Section 5(2), cannot be taxed under Section 68. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide complete documentary evidence, but the AO's addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had made proper inquiries and the assessee had provided detailed replies. The invocation of Explanation 2 to Section 263 without proper confrontation was also deemed inappropriate. Consequently, the orders of the PCIT and AO were set aside.