ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal as the assessee had not provided cogent supportive material before the Assessing Officer. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee concerning the validity of penalty proceedings due to the show-cause notice not specifying the specific limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Citing landmark judgments, the Tribunal held that such a failure vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the impugned cash deposits, despite not being fully reconciled, represented the assessee's business turnover. A lumpsum profit of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed appropriate on estimation basis, and the addition under Section 115BBE was directed to be assessed under normal provisions.

The Tribunal held that additions made for the former four assessment years were not strictly based on specific seized material, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The department's cross-appeal was dismissed as lacking substance. The assessee's last appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the conversion rate used by the AO for converting SCM to KGs was incorrect, and the standard rate of 0.75 Kg per SCM should be applied. Regarding service tax, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for necessary verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of Rs. 25,000/- per sq. yard was not fully supported by evidence. The AO's rejection based on the proviso to Section 55(2)(b)(ii) was not entirely correct given the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the possibility of communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out. In the larger interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to set aside the appeal and restore it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be given three effective opportunities of hearing, at their risk and responsibility, for consequential proceedings. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the lower authorities. The ratio decidendi is that where there is a possibility of procedural lapses or communication gaps hindering a fair hearing, the appellate authority should restore the matter to the lower authority for a fresh adjudication, ensuring adequate opportunities for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that additions made for the former four assessment years were not strictly based on specific seized material, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The department's cross-appeal was dismissed as lacking substance. The assessee's last appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a directory, not a mandatory, provision, based on the case law CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 11 benefits solely on this ground was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,11,68,000/- made on account of disallowance of interest expenses under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds available to cover the investments made in its subsidiary companies. Therefore, the interest paid on borrowed funds could not be attributed to these investments. The Tribunal reasoned that when an assessee has its own interest-free funds, it is presumed that such funds are utilized for non-business purposes, and interest-bearing funds are used for business purposes. The Tribunal also held that the addition of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- made on account of disallowance of interest expenses under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted. The reasoning was similar to the first issue, emphasizing the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to offset any non-business application of borrowed funds. The ratio decidendi is that if an assessee has adequate interest-free funds, the interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because some investments were made, as it is presumed that own funds are used for such investments. The operative direction was the deletion of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT lacked the jurisdiction to cancel the registration, as such authority rested with the CIT (Exemption). Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the registration had been renewed after the search, and there was no power to cancel registration retrospectively. The order of cancellation was therefore considered erroneous and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. It was found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by an AO (ACIT, Circle 57(1), New Delhi) who lacked actual jurisdiction over the assessees (Range 14, Ward 1 (5), Meerut at Baraut) without any valid transfer order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed due to lack of jurisdiction, setting aside the assessment order.

The Tribunal noted that while the initial assessment and additions were confirmed, penalty proceedings are distinct. Citing CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd., it was held that not every addition automatically results in a penalty. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the impugned penalty in this specific instance, despite the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal held that incentives received under the FPS and SHIS schemes are capital receipts and not chargeable to tax. It also directed that these incentives be excluded from book profits for MAT purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while the source of deposits was not fully proven, public donations could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,85,000/- was deemed appropriate, and it was clarified that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal noted that while the cash deposits were treated as unexplained, the assessee's business activities were not disputed. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- was deemed just and proper, with the balance addition deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and issues with virtual hearings, as well as the non-compliance with section 250(6). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that incentives received under the FPS and SHIS schemes are capital receipts and not chargeable to tax. It also directed that these incentives be excluded from book profits for MAT purposes.

The tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three opportunities to present their case, with the caveat that they must prove their case at their own risk.

The tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three opportunities to present their case, with the caveat that they must prove their case at their own risk.

The ITAT allowed the claim for deduction under Section 80G, directing the AO to verify the details. The ITAT also allowed the exemption for interest income, holding that such claims can be entertained at the appellate stage if facts are on record.

The tribunal found no nexus between the searched entity and the alleged accommodation entries. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deemed to have no merit and was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide complete details and documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness and creditworthiness of the sundry debtors from whom cash was allegedly received. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the condition of filing Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. A mere delay in filing does not bar an assessee from claiming lawful exemption, especially when prior decisions and CBDT circulars have relaxed such conditions. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s appellate orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and if they fail to represent their case, the CIT(A) can decide on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s appellate orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and if they fail to represent their case, the CIT(A) can decide on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s appellate orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and if they fail to represent their case, the CIT(A) can decide on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s appellate orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and if they fail to represent their case, the CIT(A) can decide on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s appellate orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and if they fail to represent their case, the CIT(A) can decide on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s appellate orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and if they fail to represent their case, the CIT(A) can decide on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s appellate orders and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and if they fail to represent their case, the CIT(A) can decide on merits.

The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that given the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order, it was appropriate to set aside the appeals. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee did not fully discharge the onus of reconciliation, the entire amount could not be denied credit. A lump sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, with the balance amount being allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and admitted an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. It was found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by an AO (ACIT, Circle 57(1), New Delhi) who lacked actual jurisdiction over the assessees (Range 14, Ward 1 (5), Meerut at Baraut) without any valid transfer order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed due to lack of jurisdiction, setting aside the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted mechanically without due application of mind, rendering the entire search assessment illegal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must be specific to each assessment year and each assessee, and cannot be a mechanical or rubber-stamped formality. In this case, the approval was found to be granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees in a single day, rendering it invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine and rebut it, as required by Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had suo motu examined the evidence, thus not requiring reference to the AO. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings and reasoning.

The Tribunal held that the assessment completed under Section 144 without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is a jurisdictional error. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Dart Infrabuild P Ltd., the Tribunal stated that the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice is mandatory, even if the return is filed belatedly in response to a Section 148 notice, and this is not a curable defect under Section 292BB.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure was incurred for aligning Indian stores with global H&M standards and was commercially expedient for the assessee's business. The Tribunal found the expenditure to be incidental to business and not for personal benefit or brand building of the parent company.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove its charitable nature and genuine activities. The rejection by the Ld. CIT(Exemption) was based on grounds that were not substantiated by material evidence.