ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the source of cash deposits was proved by the assessee's cash book and audited balance sheet, deleting the addition. It also allowed commission expenses as transfer expenses for capital gains calculation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective because they failed to specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being levied, and also because the AO initiated penalty for one charge but levied it for another. The defect was considered incurable.

The Tribunal held that prior to July 1, 2016, there was no legal sanctity for Form No. 3CL in quantifying eligible deduction under Section 35(2AB) and deleted the disallowance related to it. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was sustained.

The Tribunal noted the Assessee's submission and the Revenue's no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if the scheme application fails.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a curable defect and the requirement was directory, not mandatory. Condoning the delay, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the benefit of Section 11 exemption to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were non-est in the eyes of law because separate Section 153D approvals were not obtained for each taxpayer and assessment year. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that deemed such assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were non-est in the eyes of law because separate Section 153D approvals were not obtained for each taxpayer and assessment year. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that deemed such assessments invalid.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO, finding that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the lender. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence to negate the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground of appeal concerning the non-adjudication of an additional ground about protective addition. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to take a report from the AO on factual aspects regarding unexplained items and decide afresh, sustaining the revenue's grounds for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the cross-objections was valid and could be considered at any stage. It was found that the search was not conducted at the assessee's premises, and incriminating material was received later. Therefore, assessment should have been under Section 153C, not 153A.

The Tribunal held that communication gaps during virtual hearings could not be ruled out and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus and relied on judicial precedents. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned by the assessee during the year.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are attracted to EDC paid by real estate developers to HUDA. The assessee was rightly treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. JCIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the CPC cannot invoke Section 50C while processing a return under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it lacks the authority to refer the matter to a Valuation Officer (DVO).

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are attracted to EDC paid by real estate developers to HUDA. The assessee was rightly treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority, citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. The reopening was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are attracted to EDC paid by real estate developers to HUDA. The assessee was rightly treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C of the Act are attracted to EDC paid by real estate developers to HUDA. The assessee was rightly treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing this additional opportunity. The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the appellate proceedings, filing all necessary evidences.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide proper bifurcation for interest-bearing loans used for business and non-business purposes. The Tribunal also found that the assessee failed to controvert the findings regarding suppressed production and profit, leading to disallowances.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground regarding the non-issuance of the Section 143(2) notice. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, it was held that the issuance of a Section 143(2) notice is mandatory once a return is filed in response to a Section 148 notice. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO without issuing this notice was deemed bad in law and void ab initio, and the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 12,52,650/- on account of unexplained investment was without merit and therefore deleted. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's case after perusing the affidavit of Shri Hirdya Ranjan Kumar Sinha, the assessee's father-in-law. The affidavit supported the claim that Rs. 8,49,000/- was advanced by him between October 2011 and February 2012 for the purchase of the property. The Tribunal noted that the affidavit indicated the amount was either directly credited to the assessee's bank account or paid to the builder on her behalf, and also contained the father-in-law's PAN. Coupled with the assessee's bank statements, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged her onus in proving the source of funds for the property purchase. The ratio decidendi is that an affidavit from a lender, supported by documentary evidence like bank statements and the lender's PAN, can be sufficient to discharge the assessee's onus regarding the source of investment, provided the lender's creditworthiness is reasonably established through such documentation.

The Tribunal held that since the income/loss from the property sale was assessed and accepted in the assessee's hands, and his wife did not claim the TDS credit, the assessee is entitled to the credit. It clarified that Section 199 is a substantive provision for TDS credit, and Rule 37BA(2) is merely procedural, thus the procedural non-adherence by the wife cannot override the substantive right of the assessee where income is taxed in his hands.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) based on income-yielding investments and to verify if the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments that yielded dividend income under Rule 8D(2)(ii).

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval granted under Section 153D for multiple assessees and assessment years was bad in law. Additions made on the basis of documents found in the search of other persons cannot be made under Section 153A.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn and dismissed it as withdrawn. The parties were granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme settlement was not satisfactory.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to the mandatory approval under Section 151. Therefore, the notice and the consequential assessment order were bad in law and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were invalid because separate Section 153D approvals were not obtained. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments stating that such assessments are non-est in the eyes of law if the approval process is flawed.

The Ld. CIT(A), relying on amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2024 to Section 251, set aside the ex-parte assessment to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity to the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it just and proper in light of the statutory amendments, thereby dismissing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the bank statements relied upon by the assessee before the CIT(A) were not verified. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the bank statements and to pass an order accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the additional ground challenging the validity of assessments due to lack of proper Section 153D approval is admissible. Citing precedent, the Tribunal found that assessments made with a common or mechanical Section 153D approval, without due application of mind, are non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were defective because they failed to specify the exact charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being levied, and also because the AO initiated penalty for one charge but levied it for another. The defect was considered incurable.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were non-est in the eyes of law because separate Section 153D approvals were not obtained for each taxpayer and assessment year. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that deemed such assessments invalid.

The Tribunal found that Madhya Pradesh Today Media Company is not functionally similar to the assessee as it is engaged in the newspaper business. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the TPO to exclude this company from the list of comparables and recompute the Arm's Length Price. If the assessee's margin falls within the range after recomputation, no adjustment should be made.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated based on these invalid assessment orders were also quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity for hearing and filing evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were invalid due to the absence of proper, taxpayer-wise, and assessment year-wise approvals under Section 153D. It relied on previous rulings that such assessments are non-est in law.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground of appeal concerning the non-adjudication of an additional ground about protective addition. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to take a report from the AO on factual aspects regarding unexplained items and decide afresh, sustaining the revenue's grounds for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, as required by Section 151(2) for reassessments beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits. The claims of cash withdrawal and cash sales were found to be unsubstantiated and in some cases, manipulated, leading to the confirmation of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were non-est in the eyes of law because separate Section 153D approvals were not obtained for each taxpayer and assessment year. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments that deemed such assessments invalid.

The Tribunal acknowledged some failure in the assessee's explanation but also noted the Revenue's complete disbelief was not fully justified. It deemed a lump-sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs appropriate in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the Tribunal directed the AO to tax this addition under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE, citing a Madras High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the delay in issuing TDS certificates was a consequence of delays in TDS deposit and TDS statement filing, for which the assessee had faced other penalties. It found no deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct by the assessee, and therefore set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to strike off the irrelevant portion of the penalty notice, making it unclear whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, renders the notice bad in law. This is based on precedents from the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated based on these invalid assessment orders were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 143(2) was not in the prescribed format as per CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23.06.2017. As the CBDT instructions are mandatory and binding, the notice was considered invalid, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated based on these invalid assessment orders were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the penalty proceedings initiated based on these invalid assessment orders were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was without jurisdiction as it predated the notification of the faceless assessment scheme. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed null and void.

The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of unverified sundry creditors, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the concealment penalty on the deleted addition cannot stand.