ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2011-12, the addition of house property receipts was not supported by incriminating material, hence the assessment was quashed. For subsequent years, the Tribunal found that Sh. Sunil Jain and Sh. Sunil Kumar were the same person, as evidenced by shared details and reports, thus affirming the lower authorities' conclusion. However, the computation of income needs to consider corresponding expenditures.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, citing potential communication gaps in virtual hearings and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was granted three opportunities of hearing.

Citing precedents (Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. and CIT vs. Jet Airways), the Tribunal held that the reassessment initiated on the belief of escaped assessment due to investment in immovable property could not be sustained when the final addition made was on an entirely different ground, i.e., unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.

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 directed the AO to estimate the Gross Profit (GP) at the average of the last three years' GP rates (6.65%). The Tribunal also deleted the addition made under Section 43B as the amounts were opening balances and not expenses claimed in the current year.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2011-12, the addition of house property receipts was not supported by incriminating material, hence the assessment was quashed. For subsequent years, the Tribunal found that Sh. Sunil Jain and Sh. Sunil Kumar were the same person, as evidenced by shared details and reports, thus affirming the lower authorities' conclusion. However, the computation of income needs to consider corresponding expenditures.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by invoking Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not sustainable as this section was introduced prospectively and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the orders passed by the lower authorities were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was passed ex-parte and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that technicalities must give way to substantial justice. The assessee had explained the delay due to circumstances beyond their control, and the departmental representative could not dispute this. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for both long-term capital gain on Durga Enterprises shares and short-term capital gain on PMC Fincorp shares. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s reasoning regarding the valuation of shares and the nature of the PMC Fincorp transaction.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by invoking Section 143(1)(a)(v) was not sustainable as this section was introduced prospectively and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the orders passed by the lower authorities were quashed.

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 appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition for demonetization cash deposits was unwarranted, as similar deposits were made throughout the year and accepted. For the profit estimation, it directed re-computation based on average net profits of preceding years, as Section 44AD was not applicable. The 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE was deemed prospective.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2011-12, the addition of house property receipts was not supported by incriminating material, hence the assessment was quashed. For subsequent years, the Tribunal found that Sh. Sunil Jain and Sh. Sunil Kumar were the same person, as evidenced by shared details and reports, thus affirming the lower authorities' conclusion. However, the computation of income needs to consider corresponding expenditures.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and held that it was in the larger interest of justice to set aside the appeal. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudication on merits violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to prove the genuineness of the impugned business expenditure. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a salaried employee, could not be denied the possibility of having personal cash savings, especially during the demonetization period. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2011-12, the addition of house property receipts was not supported by incriminating material, hence the assessment was quashed. For subsequent years, the Tribunal found that Sh. Sunil Jain and Sh. Sunil Kumar were the same person, as evidenced by shared details and reports, thus affirming the lower authorities' conclusion. However, the computation of income needs to consider corresponding expenditures.

The Tribunal held that for assessment year 2011-12, the addition of house property receipts was not supported by incriminating material, hence the assessment was quashed. For subsequent years, the Tribunal found that Sh. Sunil Jain and Sh. Sunil Kumar were the same person, as evidenced by shared details and reports, thus affirming the lower authorities' conclusion. However, the computation of income needs to consider corresponding expenditures.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the Assessee an opportunity of being heard and to produce documents.

The Tribunal allowed the additional rent claim, considering the significant increase in student enrollment and revenue. However, it dismissed the royalty expense claim, finding it unjustified as the trust already used the name. The consultancy charges were allowed.

The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were passed without hearing the appellant and without proper verification of documents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justifiable because it did not specify the exact charging section for the surrendered income and treated multiple sections as optional, making the assumption of jurisdiction debatable. The order was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2015-16 was beyond the six-year block period prescribed under Section 153C, as interpreted by the Delhi High Court in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for undisclosed income and unexplained cash credit, finding the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of depreciation on computers.

The Tribunal held that once the conversion of stock-in-trade to investment was not questioned in prior years, the capital gains derived from its subsequent sale could not be rejected as business income. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow transfer expenses supported by bills and TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had availed credit facilities at 13.5% interest and advanced funds to a sister concern at 8% interest. Considering the assessee's substantial non-interest-bearing funds (share capital, reserve and surplus), it was presumed that the advance to the sister concern was made from interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that interest income from fixed deposits and loans to employees is eligible for deduction under Section 10AA, treating it as business income. It also held that expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for computing the deduction.

The tribunal decided that the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of contract charges was erroneous. The CIT(A) had already deleted this addition, and the assessee's grounds in the cross-objections supported this deletion.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities disallowed the interest payment of Rs. 58,53,195/- solely due to the assessee's failure to deduct TDS. The assessee sought to admit additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which contained details of payees having been assessed for the interest income in light of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia). The Revenue contended that this additional evidence should be sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, as it was being submitted for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's technical objection and accepted the assessee's issue of section 40(a)(ia) disallowance to be restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and factual verification as per law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. Following precedent, it set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh after affording the Assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. Following precedent, it set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh after affording the Assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was by an officer without jurisdiction, rendering the assessment void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce necessary documents to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of parties involved in share capital and unsecured loans. Despite opportunities, the assessee did not comply. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The grounds of appeal were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission expenses should be @4% and not @10% as initially disallowed. The stamp duty and trademark expenses were deleted. The disallowance of professional and advertisement expenses was also modified.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not sufficiently rebut the assessee's affidavit and failed to make necessary inquiries from the purchasers. The Tribunal considered the assessee's statement and the potential lack of knowledge of a rustic widow.

The Tribunal held that since similar additions for other assessment years were deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench, and the interest income from FDRs with cooperative banks is generally allowable as a deduction, the addition could not be considered as concealed income. Consequently, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was unsustainable. The assessee had provided documents to prove his role as a BC agent and the funds were deposited in his bank account during demonetization.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a history of seeking adjournments and did not appear for the hearing. The Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s orders were based on the material on record. Since the assessee failed to present any arguments or new material, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

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

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits. Following precedent, it set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh after affording the Assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange loss on advances received for business purposes, even if subsequently invested in mutual funds, is a revenue expenditure and not directly related to earning exempt income. Therefore, it cannot be disallowed under Section 14A.

The Tribunal, relying on a Delhi High Court judgment, held that the penalty orders passed on 31.01.2024 were beyond the statutory limitation period specified in Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which required completion by 31.03.2023 or 30.06.2023. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was correctly made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had proved the genuineness of the transaction with Global Distributors Limited through an arbitration award and other evidence, thus allowing the ground related to the cash credit addition.

The Tribunal, relying on a Delhi High Court judgment, held that the penalty orders passed on 31.01.2024 were beyond the statutory limitation period specified in Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which required completion by 31.03.2023 or 30.06.2023. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal, relying on a Delhi High Court judgment, held that the penalty orders passed on 31.01.2024 were beyond the statutory limitation period specified in Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which required completion by 31.03.2023 or 30.06.2023. Consequently, the impugned penalty orders were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on sundry creditors, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding interest disallowance, following Supreme Court and High Court judgments on the use of interest-free funds.

For AY 2016-17, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after ensuring proper service of notice. For AY 2017-18, the tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned assessment, finding that the approval for reassessment was not granted by the legally competent authority as per the new regime.