ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not make any addition based on the original sole reason for reopening the assessment (acquisition of immovable property), any subsequent addition made during reassessment on a different ground (sale of Rs.21,93,500/-) is not sustainable in law. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO had indeed recorded satisfaction and rejected the assessee's argument regarding lack of expenditure. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim that its case was covered by previous orders.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex-parte without a proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the option price received by the assessee is a capital receipt, to be adjusted at the time of share transfer. The High Court had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeals on this issue, establishing consistency.

The Tribunal held that the option price received by the assessee is a capital receipt. It should be adjusted against the sale consideration at the time of transfer of shares and not taxed as revenue income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made an addition by estimating net profit at 8% of turnover without issuing a notice of enhancement to the assessee, which is a fatal flaw. Therefore, the addition made by the CIT(A) on account of net profit was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the cash credits. The Tribunal examined the evidence produced by the assessee in support of the cash credits. It was found that while the assessee had provided some documentation, it was not sufficient to conclusively establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) had correctly applied Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were sustained. The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism, could not be ruled out. It also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, to serve the larger interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the Assessing Officer had not issued a Section 143(2) notice before finalizing the assessment. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. It also observed a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

The Tribunal held that for the AY 2012-13, the assessment was unabated, and any addition must be based on seized material. The Revenue failed to provide any such incriminating material. For AY 2013-14, the assessment was abated, and the assessee had already provided all necessary details to the AO. Therefore, no grounds were found to revive the disallowances.

The Tribunal held that for the AY 2012-13, the assessment was unabated, and any addition must be based on seized material. The Revenue failed to provide any such incriminating material. For AY 2013-14, the assessment was abated, and the assessee had already provided all necessary details to the AO. Therefore, no grounds were found to revive the disallowances.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions, held that the limitation period commences from the date the DRP order is electronically available/visible to the Assessing Officer in the ITBA portal. It concluded that the DRP order was available on 29.09.2021, making the final assessment order passed on 23.11.2021 time-barred. The assessment order was declared *non est* and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the entire payments were made through banking channels by the assessee's husband. The assessee's personal contribution of "stridhan" could be considered explained expenditure given her socio-economic status.

The Tribunal held that the option price received by the assessee is a capital receipt. It is to be adjusted at the time of transfer of shares for calculating capital gains, and not taxable as revenue in the year of receipt.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks and other institutions is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The decision followed various High Court judgments and coordinate bench rulings.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to appear and provide any explanation or assistance before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. Since the assessee did not offer any justification for the cash deposits, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances, finding that the assessee had established its business operations through subsidiaries and that earning revenue is not the sole basis for allowing expenditure in infrastructure projects.

The Tribunal held that the option price received by the assessee is a capital receipt, to be adjusted at the time of share transfer. The High Court had previously dismissed the Revenue's appeals on this issue, establishing consistency.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications based on factually incorrect, legally untenable, or conjectural reasons. The appellant had fulfilled the requirements for registration and exemption.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect of the deletion was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, citing CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Consequently, the cross-objection also became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications based on factually incorrect, legally untenable, or conjectural reasons. The appellant had fulfilled the requirements for registration and exemption.

The Tribunal, relying on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case and the settled law regarding the application of mind for approval u/s 153D, found that the approval was granted mechanically. The assessment order was therefore 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 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 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 approval granted under Section 153D was not granted with due application of mind, as it was granted mechanically for multiple cases and assessment years on the same day. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence like confirmation of share applicants, bank statements, ITRs, and audited accounts. The Tribunal noted that the AO doubted the 'source of source' rather than the source of the amount credited, which is not required for the assessment year in question. Therefore, the CIT(A) did not err in deleting the addition.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the unsecured loans, including confirmation, ITR, balance sheets, and bank statements of the creditors. The identity and creditworthiness of the creditors were established, and the transactions were conducted through account payee cheques.

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 bank account withdrawals could be corroborated from the bank statement and the Revenue had not brought any material on record to show that the cash deposited was not out of cash withdrawn. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the AO in the OGE accepted the return of income and the PCIT, after verification, did not propose any additions, the directions given by the PCIT under Section 263 became infructuous. Consequently, all grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the matter required a denovo assessment in the interest of justice. It remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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 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 held that the First Appellate Authority had confirmed the addition made by the AO without admitting or rejecting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without giving the AO an opportunity to examine the same. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the appeal was remitted to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,38,36,834. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the facts and circumstances indicated a case of high sea sale, where imports were made on credit using the assessee's IEC code, and the goods were sold before customs clearance. The payments to suppliers, customs duty, and clearing agents were not found to be made from the assessee's bank accounts, indicating that other parties made these payments. Therefore, a separate addition for unexplained investment was not justified. Regarding the addition on unaccounted purchases, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the profit estimation to 2% of Rs. 14,49,67,118. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reasoning for this restriction, based on the assessee's historical profit margins and the principle of realistic estimation, to be sound. The Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s process of reasoning and findings. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee company had set up its business when it was ready to make investments, evidenced by receiving funds and making its first investment. Expenses incurred after setting up the business are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the deletion of additions for unsecured loans and sundry creditors, finding them properly explained with supporting documents and confirmations. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) were also dismissed as the quantum additions were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and the deletion of additions for unsecured loans and sundry creditors, finding them properly explained with supporting documents and confirmations. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) were also dismissed as the quantum additions were deleted.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. holding that timely deposit of employee's contribution before the statutory due date is a condition for deduction. However, the Tribunal also noted that the AO needs to verify the method of reckoning the due date based on salary disbursement.