ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground regarding sales tax incentives. It admitted this ground and decided that appellate authorities can consider new claims. The Tribunal also allowed 60% depreciation on software and allowed the bad debt write-off claim subject to proof of write-off in books.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground regarding sales tax incentives. The Tribunal admitted this ground and decided to adjudicate it, stating that the Goetz India Ltd. decision does not fetter appellate authorities' powers to consider new claims.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional ground regarding sales tax incentives. The appellate authorities have the power to adjudicate new claims, and the Goetz India Ltd. judgment does not restrict this power. The matter was remanded for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and did not indicate perusal of assessment records. This renders the assessment orders invalid.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. This was evidenced by a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and assessees, without any indication of perusal of draft assessment orders or related documents.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple years and assessees, and lacked any evidence of review of assessment details. This decision was supported by a jurisdictional High Court ruling on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and did not indicate any perusal of draft assessment orders or related documents. This decision was supported by a jurisdictional High Court ruling on a similar issue.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval without specific review of draft assessment orders, seized documents, or assessee's replies. This decision was supported by a jurisdictional High Court ruling on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. This was evidenced by a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and the absence of any indication that the draft assessment orders were perused.

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(Exemption) was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the appellant was not heard. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to treat purchases as non-genuine but restricted the addition to 2.46% of the turnover as net profit, aligning with the assessee's declared average gross profit over three years.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly complied with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act by filing Form No. 10 for accumulation of funds before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim exemption.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay as it was pursuing alternative remedies before the CPC. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and adjudicate the grounds on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground regarding sales tax incentives. The appellate authorities' powers are not fettered by the decision in Goetz India Ltd. regarding admitting new claims.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without a proper finding on merits. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the first ground and restored it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the figure of Rs. 49,19,22,400.94 was merely a contra entry in the buyer's ledger and had no relevance for computing capital gains on the slump sale. The Tribunal found that the differential profit of Rs. 21 crores from the sale (Rs. 70 crores sale consideration minus Rs. 49.19 crores book value of assets) was duly offered by the assessee as long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order did not discuss the advance tax liability or provide an opportunity to rectify the alleged default. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the reasons for reopening were not supplied to the assessee, despite a request. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a common approval for multiple assessees and assessment years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were deemed void.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a common approval for multiple cases and assessment years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a common approval for multiple cases and assessment years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had relied on a limited part of the society's memorandum and had not considered evidence showing the imparting of education as an objective. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) to call for relevant information and decide the application afresh.

The Tribunal held that sales totaling Rs. 93,34,85,432/- to 13 parties were already included in the total sales and offered to tax. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal ruled that no addition could be made for these sales as it would result in double addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism and also observed a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of disallowing ESI/PF contributions in a Section 143(1) processing is highly debatable. Citing a Chhattisgarh High Court decision, the Tribunal found that such disallowances should not be made under Section 143(1) when there are conflicting judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had sought a remand report regarding additional evidence, but it was not acted upon. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A cannot be based on incriminating material found in a search of a third party's premises without following the procedure under section 153C. A statement recorded under section 132(4) cannot solely form the basis for assessment if it is not linked to incriminating material found during the assessee's search.

The Tribunal held that the issue had attained finality in previous assessment years. Following judicial consistency and the principle of precedence, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings that the assessee was not involved in trade, commerce, or business activities.

The ITAT condoned a 23-day delay in filing the appeal, finding it bona fide. Without commenting on the merits, the tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the cash deposits in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence produced by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 was relevant and could not be rejected outright. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was filed ex-parte as no one appeared on their behalf. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to issue fresh notices to the correct email address provided by the assessee and afford an opportunity for submissions.

The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A cannot be based on incriminating material found in a search of a third party's premises without following the procedure under section 153C. A statement recorded under section 132(4) cannot solely form the basis for assessment if it is not linked to incriminating material found during the assessee's search.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte, possibly due to communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three effective opportunities.

The Tribunal held that assessments under section 153A cannot be based on incriminating material found in a search of a third party's premises without following the procedure under section 153C. A statement recorded under section 132(4) cannot solely form the basis for assessment if it is not linked to incriminating material found during the assessee's search.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence produced by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19 was relevant and could not be rejected outright. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 153A of the Act. The key issue was the validity of the Section 153A assessment itself.

The Tribunal agreed to the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as it was a duplicate. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the department's re-characterization of the assessee's services as commission agency without a material change in facts or law was inconsistent. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the TPO/AO for a de novo Transfer Pricing Analysis with correct filters.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte and there was a possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 is available only on income within the meaning of Section 11 and not on deemed income. Therefore, the assessee cannot accumulate deemed income. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not appear for hearings, leading to an ex-parte decision.

The Tribunal held that communication gaps and potential issues with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism could not be ruled out. It also noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

The Tribunal held that to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard by the Ld. CIT(A) on merit.