ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the NFAC, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present its claim. The assessee was directed to appear before the NFAC and cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal, for the sake of overall justice, condoned the inordinate delay of 406 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue on its merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the CPC had passed a rectification order rectifying the error in the original order. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in the name of a deceased person, and no valid notice was served on the legal heir. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceeding is vitiated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and landmark judgments. The Tribunal also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order and set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. ABC Paper Ltd., held that the Delhi Benches lack territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the ITAT's and High Court's jurisdiction depends on the situs of the Assessing Officer who passed the original order, irrespective of case transfers under Section 127. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as non-maintainable, with liberty granted to file them before the appropriate Lucknow Benches.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the larger interest of justice and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication due to communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It noted that communication gaps might have occurred due to the virtual hearing mechanism and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash receipts in the 'Arathiya' business. While the assessee has the duty to prove credit entries, considering the larger interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs.3,50,000/- was deemed appropriate without creating a precedent. The assessment under Section 115BBE was also addressed, citing a precedent regarding its applicability.

The Tribunal noted that the order passed by the AO was ex-parte and the assessee was never represented before the authorities below. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Recognizing the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and considering potential communication gaps in the new faceless hearing system, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities to present its case at its own risk.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits prima facie represented the assessee's cash turnover. The addition of Rs.27,12,390/- was restricted to Rs.3,50,000/- and the remaining part of the addition was deleted. This decision was not to be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to its file for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with reasonable opportunities for hearing and submission of evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to its file for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with reasonable opportunities for hearing and submission of evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee liberty to provide all necessary documents and evidence. The assessee's request for one more opportunity was accepted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee liberty to provide all necessary documents and evidence. The assessee's request for one more opportunity was accepted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee liberty to provide all necessary documents and evidence. The assessee's request for one more opportunity was accepted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee liberty to provide all necessary documents and evidence. The assessee's request for one more opportunity was accepted.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to afford reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the NFAC had entirely overlooked the assessee's application for additional evidence. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision, with a specific direction to consider and dispose of the assessee's Rule 46A application.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism and noted that the CIT(A) order did not effectively comply with Section 250(6) regarding framing points of determination. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E was introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015, and the levy of late fee for the quarter prior to this date was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that in similar cases for the same year, the penalty was deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. If the assessee fails to appear again, the CIT(A) can decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for past family savings was not specifically detailed, it could not be entirely declined, considering his socio-economic status and qualifications. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, not to be treated as a precedent, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Furthermore, Section 115BBE was held to apply only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that their submissions were overlooked. The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order, remanding the case for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the timely filing of Form 67 is a directory, not mandatory, provision. Therefore, the disallowance of foreign tax credit was incorrect.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the minimum threshold specified by the CBDT circular, and since the circular applies retrospectively, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, finding the reasons for delay to be bonafide and beyond the assessee's control. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had already granted credit for a portion of the cash deposits. Considering the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,50,000/- was deemed just and proper, with a rider that it would not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal, citing the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, held that technical aspects should give way to substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, finding the reasons for delay to be bonafide and beyond the assessee's control. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority did not consider the assessee's submissions regarding the source of cash deposits. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication with opportunities for the assessee to prove the case. Section 115BBE was noted to apply to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. ABC Paper Ltd., held that the Delhi Benches lack territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the ITAT's and High Court's jurisdiction depends on the situs of the Assessing Officer who passed the original order, irrespective of case transfers under Section 127. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as non-maintainable, with liberty granted to file them before the appropriate Lucknow Benches.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. ABC Paper Ltd., held that the Delhi Benches lack territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the ITAT's and High Court's jurisdiction depends on the situs of the Assessing Officer who passed the original order, irrespective of case transfers under Section 127. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as non-maintainable, with liberty granted to file them before the appropriate Lucknow Benches.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal regarding lack of adequate opportunity. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the Madras High Court has settled the issue in a similar case, holding that Section 115BBE of the Act does not apply to transactions in AY 2017-18. The appeal was dismissed due to a tax effect below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. ABC Paper Ltd., held that the Delhi Benches lack territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the ITAT's and High Court's jurisdiction depends on the situs of the Assessing Officer who passed the original order, irrespective of case transfers under Section 127. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections were dismissed as non-maintainable, with liberty granted to file them before the appropriate Lucknow Benches.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal regarding lack of adequate opportunity. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal regarding lack of adequate opportunity. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to virtual hearings and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, and there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction from the prescribed authority, making the reopening invalid. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the disputed issues under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme application failed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing, as an adjournment application was filed but not considered before the ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing, as an adjournment application was filed but not considered before the ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal emphasized that recording reasons is an absolute necessity before initiating a notice under Section 148. Since no reasons for reopening were produced, it was concluded that none were actually recorded. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were deemed to lack jurisdiction and were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided detailed findings on the merits of the addition. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the compensation and interest received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land are exempt from tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the unexplained credit addition.