ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by notices under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued on or after April 1, 2021, for assessment year 2015-16 are barred by limitation. The reasoning is based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, wherein it was stated that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions] Act, 2020 (TOLA). The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. Vs. CBDT & Others and the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the reassessment orders passed pursuant to these time-barred notices were held to be bad in law and void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment orders. The grounds of appeal related to this issue were allowed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be automatic, especially when no dividend income is received. Brokerage fees paid for tenant procurement in the ordinary course of business were allowed as a deduction. Short credit of TDS was directed to be rectified.

The Tribunal decided on several grounds, allowing depreciation on UPS at 60% and treating annual maintenance charges for software as revenue expenditure. It also allowed deductions for R&D expenses under Section 37 and prior period expenses, while partly upholding disallowances related to Section 80JJAA and Section 35(2AB). Penalty appeals were dismissed as the quantum appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and not indicative of application of mind, as it was given for multiple assessment years without specific consideration. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be automatic, especially when no dividend income is received. Brokerage fees paid for tenant procurement in the ordinary course of business were allowed as a deduction. Short credit of TDS was directed to be rectified.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be automatic, especially when no dividend income is received. Brokerage fees paid for tenant procurement in the ordinary course of business were allowed as a deduction. Short credit of TDS was directed to be rectified.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 14A require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction, and disallowances cannot be automatic, especially when no dividend income is received. Brokerage fees paid for tenant procurement in the ordinary course of business were allowed as a deduction. Short credit of TDS was directed to be rectified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions for two parties where basic preliminary documents were not furnished, failing to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors. However, for other share transactions, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions due to a typographical error was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D of the Act was granted in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind and not independently for each assessment year as mandated by the provisions. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the approval to be invalid.

The tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and not in compliance with the provisions of the Act, as it was granted for multiple assessment years in a single day without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 should be restricted to the extent of the violation, not the entire income. The benefit of Section 11/12 cannot be denied wholesale for a partial violation.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D must reflect an application of mind and cannot be a mere ritualistic formality. The manner in which the approval was granted in this case indicated a mechanical process, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the relief granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee. The addition of 2% of the cash deposits as income was deemed justified, considering the nature of transactions and the low profit ratio of the business. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not maintaining books of account, as they were guided by ICAI guidelines for calculating F&O turnover. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was deemed uncalled for and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not specifically point out what information was lacking and should have provided a clear opportunity for the assessee to explain. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings during the liquidation process and moratorium period is illegal and unsustainable as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The assessment order was considered void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain the delay.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions for two parties where basic preliminary documents were not furnished, failing to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors. However, for other share transactions, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions due to a typographical error was upheld.

The Tribunal observed that the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal decided on several grounds, allowing depreciation on UPS at 60% and treating annual maintenance charges for software as revenue expenditure. It also allowed deductions for R&D expenses under Section 37 and prior period expenses, while partly upholding disallowances related to Section 80JJAA and Section 35(2AB). Penalty appeals were dismissed as the quantum appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D of the Act was granted in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind and not independently for each assessment year as mandated by the provisions. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the approval to be invalid.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's submissions for condonation of delay were vague and lacked evidence. The assessee was aware of the proceedings and had represented before the CIT(Appeals) prior to the order being passed, yet failed to properly explain the significant delay.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 on or after 01.04.2021 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court, the reassessment orders were quashed as bad in law and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Principal Commissioner's approval was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as evidenced by the brief endorsement and quick turnaround time. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments regarding the proper procedure for granting approval for reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal CIT for reopening the assessments was mechanical and not in accordance with Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits made by the assessee trust during the demonetization period, amounting to Rs.39,83,63,741/-, were not to be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explained the source of these deposits as fee receipts from IPD/OPD collections and student fees, and crucially, had offered this amount as income in its return of income. The reasoning was that once an amount is offered to tax by the assessee, it cannot simultaneously be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A. The AO's addition was based on the perceived lack of corroborative evidence for the source, but the fact that the income was declared and offered for taxation superseded this concern. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). The operative direction was to delete the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that both the lower authorities decided the case ex-parte and not on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for deciding the case afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary evidences to establish the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary evidences to establish the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 60% on UPS, treating annual maintenance charges for software as revenue expenditure, and dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to these issues. The Tribunal also allowed the Assessee's appeal regarding prior period expenses, finding them to be business expenditure. For depreciation on energy-saving devices, the AO was directed to verify and correct calculations, and for commercial vehicles, the Tribunal held that vehicles purchased within a specific period were eligible for 50% depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the computation mechanism under Rule 8D(2) cannot be applied for calculating book profits under Section 115JB. The disallowance of expenses under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the dividend income earned.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Principal CIT for reopening the assessments was mechanical and not in accordance with Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings during the liquidation process and moratorium period is illegal and unsustainable as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The assessment order was considered void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) ought to have been passed under Section 153C of the Act, given the facts related to the search and seized material. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had correctly deducted TDS at the rate specified in the lower deduction certificate. They noted that a similar case involving the assessee's father had also been decided in favor of the assessee, and differential treatment was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable as no incriminating material was found during the search of the assessee's premises. Statements recorded post-search and material seized from third parties, without following due procedure, could not form the basis for additions under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting the additions. The Tribunal noted that the same issue concerning the sale of shares of Capital Trade Link Ltd. had been decided in favor of the assessee in their individual capacity by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities decided the cases ex-parte without addressing the merits. Considering the appeals were not decided on merit and the assessee was denied a proper hearing, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the legal heirs, noting that the original appeal was dismissed ex parte.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction as the revenue failed to provide evidence of the Additional Commissioner's authorization. Following precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to submit details of its charitable activities. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities decided the cases ex-parte without addressing the merits. Considering the appeals were not decided on merit and the assessee was denied a proper hearing, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received relief through rectification orders and no objection was raised by the Revenue for withdrawal.

The Tribunal observed that the appeals were dismissed without going into the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT) while granting approval. The Pr.CIT's approval was mechanical, lacking genuine satisfaction as required by law.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) ought to have been passed under Section 153C of the Act, given the facts related to the search and seized material. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause due to the CIT(Appeals) disposing of the appeal ex parte without proper opportunity. The appeal was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, acting as a property broker, had sufficiently established that the impounded documents related to third-party transactions. The additions made by the AO were based on general assumptions and presumptions without sufficient corroborative material.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years from the end of the assessment year requires the Assessing Officer to prove that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. In this case, the reasons for reopening indicated a mere change of opinion by the AO and not any new information.