ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the unaccounted turnover was rational and based on scientific views from seized materials and comparable cases. The AO's estimation of net profit at 75% was not considered probable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the unaccounted turnover was rational and based on scientific views from seized materials and comparable cases. The AO's estimation of net profit at 75% was not considered probable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 10% of the unaccounted turnover was rational and based on scientific views from seized materials and comparable cases. The AO's estimation of net profit at 75% was not considered probable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Sr. DR raised no objection.

The Tribunal held that receipts from CRM services are not taxable as royalty or FTS. This decision aligns with previous rulings by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) committed an error by misunderstanding the nature of the appeal before it. The Ld.CIT(A) incorrectly assumed the appeal was against the final assessment order dated 30.06.2021, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should lie before the ITAT. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee had filed an appeal against the set-aside order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the AO pursuant to the ITAT's earlier remand directions. The Tribunal reasoned that when an appeal is set aside by the ITAT for reconsideration, the subsequent proceedings are fresh. Therefore, the assessee was within its rights to file an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) against the AO's order passed in compliance with the remand directions. The Tribunal found the Ld.CIT(A)'s action of dismissing the appeal to be contrary to law. Consequently, the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Ld.CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal afresh on its merits against the order dated 22.03.2024. The grounds related to this procedural issue were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) should revisit the issue by examining the documents that were not initially placed before it. The appeal was remitted back to the DRP for reconsideration of the matter, allowing the assessee to submit all details and for the DRP to finalize the issue within eight months.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive if the scheme application fails.

The Tribunal decided that the DRP was justified in excluding two comparables, M/s E-Infochips Bangalore Limited and M/s Infinite Data Systems Pvt. Limited, as they were functionally dissimilar to the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition made under Section 40(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the seized papers were 'dumb documents' as they did not clearly indicate the nature of transactions, period, or quantum. Therefore, no additions could be made based solely on these documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the NFAC, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee, including a potential oversight by the counsel.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of power from the eligible unit to the non-eligible unit should be valued at the market rate at which electricity is supplied to industrial consumers, deleting the TPO's adjustment. Regarding steam, the Tribunal found that its value cannot be taken at NIL, as it is a commercial product with a cost of production, and directed the AO to re-examine the issue.

The Tribunal noted that the mode of service was unclear and the merits of the issue were not examined. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issue back to the NFAC to pass a fresh order after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the inadvertent inclusion of figures from a draft personal statement of affairs, instead of the business balance sheet, was acceptable. The additions made by the AO were deleted by the CIT(A) and this decision was upheld by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's inability to produce documents was due to ailments and surgeries. The CIT(A) had enhanced the addition and refused to admit additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that booking fees and payments for the Altea system are taxable as business income, not royalty, following previous decisions of the co-ordinate bench and the Delhi High Court. However, the Tribunal upheld the finding of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not specify the mode of service of notices or provide observations about the assessee's knowledge, despite 11 notices being issued. To ensure the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the case on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored all issues (on merits and law) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not specify the mode of service of notices or provide observations about the assessee's knowledge, despite 11 notices being issued. To ensure the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the case on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored all issues (on merits and law) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not specify the mode of service of notices or provide observations about the assessee's knowledge, despite 11 notices being issued. To ensure the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the case on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored all issues (on merits and law) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not specify the mode of service of notices or provide observations about the assessee's knowledge, despite 11 notices being issued. To ensure the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the case on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored all issues (on merits and law) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not specify the mode of service of notices or provide observations about the assessee's knowledge, despite 11 notices being issued. To ensure the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the case on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored all issues (on merits and law) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not specify the mode of service of notices or provide observations about the assessee's knowledge, despite 11 notices being issued. To ensure the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the case on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored all issues (on merits and law) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not specify the mode of service of notices or provide observations about the assessee's knowledge, despite 11 notices being issued. To ensure the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the case on merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes and restored all issues (on merits and law) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper service of notice.

The Tribunal ruled that both the notice under Section 148, issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and the assessment order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, were without jurisdiction. This was based on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, which specified monetary limits for the ITO, and the absence of any Section 127 order transferring jurisdiction. The assessment order was quashed as void ab initio, and the appeal was allowed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E)'s order was silent on the manner of service of notices, it was appropriate to give the assessee an opportunity to file the required documents. The issue was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was bad in law and barred by limitation due to improper recording of the satisfaction note. The satisfaction note was consolidated, lacked year-wise analysis, and did not specify the seized material's relevance to each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's alleged non-cooperation was justifiable due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically mentioning potential communication gaps in the newly introduced faceless assessment system. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was bad in law and barred by limitation due to improper recording of the satisfaction note. The satisfaction note was consolidated, lacked year-wise analysis, and did not specify the seized material's relevance to each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)/NFAC proceeded ex-parte, and acknowledging potential communication issues with the faceless system, it was appropriate to restore the appeal. The assessee was given three opportunities to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.

The Tribunal held that the interest income derived from investments made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks, cooperative societies, and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench's decision in ITO Vs. Shri Bhairavnath Multistate Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which considered the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. case and allowed similar claims. The reasoning was that interest income earned by a cooperative society from cooperative banks qualifies for deduction. Regarding the commission income, the Tribunal held that since the assessee is a cane cooperative institution and earned the commission in its regular business activity of marketing cane produce of its members, it is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 80P deduction on commission income was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the lead appeal and directed that the same order would follow in the other quantum and penalty appeals.

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

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, there was a possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced faceless hearing system. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be given three effective opportunities to plead and prove its case, subject to the condition that the taxpayer would do so at its own risk and responsibility. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year and lacked the necessary sanction from the specified authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that a belated return filed within the time allowed under Section 139(4) is eligible for Section 11 exemption. It also noted that the filing of the audit report is directory and substantial compliance is sufficient, especially when the audit was conducted before filing the return.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism and the CIT(Appeals)'s non-compliance with Section 250(6) regarding framing points of determination. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant three effective opportunities for hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had prima facie explained the source of the impugned investment. Considering the larger interest of justice, the addition was restricted to a lump sum amount.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 132 days, finding no mala fide intent on the part of the assessee. It was observed that the CIT(A) had failed to address the legal grounds raised by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of certain comparable companies deemed functionally different. It also held that separate adjustment for outstanding receivables is not warranted if working capital adjustment already accounts for it, directing the AO/TPO to examine this aspect.

The tribunal acknowledged potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and noted the CIT(A)'s non-compliance with Section 250(6) regarding the framing of points of determination. Thus, in the interest of justice, the case was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, granting the appellant three effective opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 14 of the IBC 2016 prohibit the continuation of any suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor during a moratorium period. This overrides other laws, including those related to income tax appeals.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had provided voluminous evidence supporting the cash sale claim. However, it found that the evidence was not fully proven to the satisfaction of the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 3,00,000/- as a lump sum, stating it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal noted that while the purchases were treated as bogus, the corresponding sales were not doubted. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. Consequently, the Tribunal disallowed the impugned purchases at a lump sum rate of 10% without treating it as a precedent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 395 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's lack of knowledge of tax laws, use of e-mail, death of his wife, and depression. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and AO and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 852 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and 7 days before the Tribunal, finding the explanation for the delay not to be mala fide. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) (which dismissed the delay condonation) and the AO (making the addition). The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing him to provide the assessee a fair opportunity to present her case.