ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2025

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.

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 held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not independently decide the issues. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeals by borrowing findings from a group case without proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and not in accordance with the law, citing similar findings in the cases of the assessee's brothers. Consequently, the assessee's Cross Objection was sustained, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the impugned assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of INR 5 Lakhs for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the cash was from the business of purchase and sale of trucks, and provided the name of a buyer, no other evidence was filed. Therefore, it could not be said that the entire profit was from this business, and the order of the lower authorities was found to have no infirmity. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the addition of INR 10,90,000. The Tribunal observed that the assessee initially claimed INR 8 Lakhs belonged to his father from land sale, but later changed his stand to truck sale proceeds. While a sale agreement for a truck was filed, showing cash receipts of INR 2 Lakhs on 16.10.2014, INR 4 Lakhs on 06.12.2014, and INR 3 Lakhs on 01.04.2015, the Tribunal found it unacceptable that the entire cash received was kept by the assessee. Furthermore, no proper explanation was provided for the remaining INR 1.90 Lakhs. Consequently, the addition was upheld. Both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of INR 5 Lakhs for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed the cash was from the business of purchase and sale of trucks, and provided the name of a buyer, no other evidence was filed. Therefore, it could not be said that the entire profit was from this business, and the order of the lower authorities was found to have no infirmity. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal upheld the addition of INR 10,90,000. The Tribunal observed that the assessee initially claimed INR 8 Lakhs belonged to his father from land sale, but later changed his stand to truck sale proceeds. While a sale agreement for a truck was filed, showing cash receipts of INR 2 Lakhs on 16.10.2014, INR 4 Lakhs on 06.12.2014, and INR 3 Lakhs on 01.04.2015, the Tribunal found it unacceptable that the entire cash received was kept by the assessee. Furthermore, no proper explanation was provided for the remaining INR 1.90 Lakhs. Consequently, the addition was upheld. Both appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to Section 143(1)(a) for a highly debatable issue like the disallowance of delayed PF and ESI contributions. Instead, Section 143(3) should have been used.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is in the construction business and cash withdrawals for deployment are normal. While the possibility of unutilized cash being deposited back cannot be ruled out, the extent of the linkage between deposits and withdrawals required further examination. Since the crucial cash book and related details were not produced before the AO, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. This mechanical approval vitiates the entire reopening process.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act was invalid as it did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 147. The AO had failed to provide clear reasons and had improved upon the reasons recorded, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issues on merit. The CIT(A) had borrowed findings from another case without independent adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issues on merit. The CIT(A) had borrowed findings from another case without independent adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issues on merit. The CIT(A) had borrowed findings from another case without independent adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter.

The Tribunal held that rejecting the application solely on the basis of non-availability of information violates the principles of natural justice. The CIT(E) should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issues on merit. The CIT(A) had borrowed findings from another case without independent adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issues on merit. The CIT(A) had borrowed findings from another case without independent adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issues on merit. The CIT(A) had borrowed findings from another case without independent adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issues on merit. The CIT(A) had borrowed findings from another case without independent adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) relied on additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration after obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue's DR accepted this fact and did not object to the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable in law and set aside. The primary reason for this was that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were factually incorrect. The show-cause notice issued by the PCIT under Section 263 incorrectly mentioned "Lifeline Securities Limited" as the script through which bogus LTCG was obtained, whereas the assessee had actually earned LTCG on the sale of "Aurbindo Pharma Ltd." shares. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was based on these wrong facts and therefore lacked jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the approval for reopening under Section 151 was also considered defective, being based on borrowed satisfaction and incorrect facts. Relying on the ratio of DCIT vs. KLA Foods (India) Ltd. and Neha Goel Vs. PCIT, the Tribunal held that if the reassessment proceedings are illegal due to being initiated on wrong facts, the consequential order under Section 263 would also be illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order under Section 263 was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details to the CIT(E) on multiple occasions. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to provide the required evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details to the CIT(E) on multiple occasions. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to provide the required evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the additional rent claim, considering the substantial 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 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 noted that the CIT(E)'s order was silent on the manner of service of notice to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with an opportunity to submit the required documents.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E)'s order was silent on the manner of service of notice to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with an opportunity to submit the required documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be taxed for failure to apply or accumulate income that was not actually received. The Tribunal found that the donation of Rs. 3,23,40,000/- was receivable and not received during the assessment year, hence its application cannot be considered. However, a short application of Rs. 10,04,681/- was found to be taxable.

The Tribunal allowed the additional rent claim, considering the substantial 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 held that the jewellery declared in the wealth tax return, being part of the record, cannot be considered as additional evidence. Since the declared jewellery exceeded the found jewellery, no addition was warranted on this count. The cash deposit was also found to be within the permissible limit for explanation without further verification.

The Tribunal allowed the additional rent claim, considering the substantial 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 held that the notice under Section 148 dated 16.07.2022 was irregularly approved by the Pr. CIT instead of the Pr. CCIT, as required by Section 151(ii) for reassessment after 3 years. Consequently, the notice and the consequent reassessment order are void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the additional cost awarded at 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation and not interest. Therefore, the PCIT's direction to treat it as interest and enhance the addition was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance, noting that the subsequent assessment under Section 143(3) verified the assessee's return and found it in order. The Tribunal found that the order under Section 143(1) merges with the order under Section 143(3).

The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(a). The date of pronouncement of the tribunal's quantum order was considered for calculating the limitation.

The Tribunal noted that the CPC had processed the return, granted the relief under section 89, and deleted the consequential demand. Therefore, the appeal had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not independently decide the issues. The CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeals by borrowing findings from a group case without proper adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in haste and additional evidence was left unconsidered. Thus, it was appropriate to admit the additional evidence and restore the issues to the AO for a fresh opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal condoned both delays, citing the Collector Land Acquisition case and the Covid-19 period for the longer delay. It also noted the CIT(A)'s non-compliance with Section 250(6). Consequently, the appeal was set aside and remanded to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and noted the lower appellate authority's non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal held that technical objections should not stand in the way of substantial justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication, with the assessee being given three effective opportunities to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned sum represented the assessee's interest income. However, Section 80P(2)(f) was not applicable as the assessee was not engaged in the specified activities. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the Section 80P deduction claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that due to potential communication gaps, especially with the introduction of virtual hearings, and a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) in the lower appellate order, the matter should be set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on stale information and a change of opinion. Furthermore, it noted that the addition of commission income in the case of Jawahar Credit was deleted by a previous ITAT order, making the Revenue's case unsustainable on merits.

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 noted the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's wife had been substantively assessed for the same addition, and this fact was un-rebutted by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after the outcome of the substantive assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a reasonable cause due to the circumstances faced by the trust. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for reconsideration of the registration application.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 and directed the AO to examine these documents and decide the issue in dispute. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the GST payable as on 31.03.2020 was already adjusted with input tax credit before the due date of filing the return. The tax auditor's report was factually incorrect in stating that the amount was unpaid. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 43B was not sustainable.