ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12, as they were self-explanatory and the CIT-DR had no objection. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the PCIT to await the final outcome of proceedings for assessment year 2012-13, which are pending before the Supreme Court. The assessee is at liberty to raise all contentions in the subsequent proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to appear, indicating a lack of keenness to pursue the appeal. In the absence of any rebuttal or controverting material, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal noted that similar grounds and new evidence for analysis of pricing policy, as in the preceding assessment year 2007-08, were referred for adjudication afresh by the Ld. TPO/AO. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal considered it expedient to restore all issues placed before it back to the file of the Ld. TPO/AO for fresh determination in accordance with law. This would include a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to restore the matter implies that the previous decisions on these issues were not considered final or satisfactory, necessitating a re-examination. The specific findings on each issue are not detailed as the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication. The operative direction is to restore the issues to the TPO/AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on 30 December 2018 is a non-est one in the eyes of law on both counts. Firstly, regarding the validity of the section 153D approval, the Tribunal found that there was no separate approval for the assessment year 2017-18. A common approval for multiple persons and multiple assessment years, without the prescribed authority properly applying its mind, was held to be not a substantive compliance with section 153D. The Tribunal relied on several High Court and Supreme Court judgments, including ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co. and PCIT Vs. Anuj Bansal, which held that such mechanical exercise of approval is invalid. Secondly, concerning the absence of section 148 or section 153C proceedings, the Tribunal held that since documents belonging to the assessee were seized during a search, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded under a regular section 143(3) assessment for the year of search without initiating either section 148 reopening or section 153C proceedings. The Tribunal cited PCIT Vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta, which indicated that section 148 proceedings could be initiated in such instances. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment on this ground as well. All other pleadings were rendered academic.

The Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction for R&D expenditure citing parity with a previous order. It also allowed the full claim for club and membership expenses, disagreeing with the CIT(A)'s distinction. However, sponsorship expenses were disallowed due to lack of evidence. The disallowance under Section 14A for MAT provisions was also allowed based on a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the true nature of the claim of refund of IGST. The assessee, being an exporter of services, deposits IGST in advance, which is later refunded after fulfilling export documentation requirements. This amount was neither claimed as an expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account nor in any preceding year, hence it could not be considered income in the year under appeal. The Tax Auditor's report in Clause 16(b) merely reported the refund of GST as an amount not credited to the P&L account, not as income. The assessee's response to the CPC's show cause notice clearly stated that IGST was accounted for as a deposit and not claimed as an expense, and thus not offered to tax upon refund. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly observed that not claiming expenditure in IGST was an attempt to avoid disallowance under Section 43B. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made on account of IGST refund. All grounds of appeal taken by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the weighted deduction for R&D expenditure citing parity with a previous order. It also allowed the full claim for club and membership expenses, disagreeing with the CIT(A)'s distinction. However, sponsorship expenses were disallowed due to lack of evidence. The disallowance under Section 14A for MAT provisions was also allowed based on a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to appear before the AO, the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) (auditor's certificate and ledger accounts) went to the root of the matter and deserved admission. However, the AO should be given an opportunity to examine these details.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically and without application of mind, as evidenced by the single order approving multiple draft assessment orders on the same day. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated and declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance and non-submission of documents. However, considering a High Court decision on Section 115BBE, the Tribunal found it appropriate to send the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present relevant documents.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of disallowances related to expatriate salaries and MAT applicability. It also upheld the deletion of additions concerning deferred bank guarantee commission, interest payments/receipts, and Head Office expenditure.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Since the CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not based on specified seized material. Furthermore, the receipts in question were repayments of the assessee's earlier advances/investments, not fresh unexplained cash credits. Therefore, the additions were rightly deleted.

The Tribunal noted that no material was placed on record to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. In the absence of any rebuttal, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of salaries paid to expatriates, following previous High Court and Supreme Court decisions on identical facts. The Tribunal also referred to a prior order for AY 2005-06 which had rejected the Revenue's identical contentions regarding MAT.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by not following previous directions of the Tribunal and by assessing interest on enhanced compensation as capital gains. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat this interest as income from other sources and allow a 50% deduction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under the old Section 148, served after the effective date of the amended provisions, violated mandatory procedural requirements. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this defective notice was set aside.

The Tribunal found that while TDS was not deposited, the assessee had submitted evidence that the recipient had paid taxes on the interest. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) might not be applicable as per the proviso.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to produce any evidence to contradict the findings that the land was not agricultural and was within the municipal limits.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 06.04.2022 was barred by limitation as the normal period of limitation expired on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was to be condoned, considering the intervening period and the explanation provided by the assessee for the remaining delay. The Tribunal relied on the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice, as established in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of interest on cash credit, holding that the AO could not make a disallowance on a transaction accepted by the TPO. It also allowed claims related to bad debts and miscellaneous expenses, directing verification for communication expenses and restoring matters concerning legal/professional fees and prior period expenses to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was to be condoned, considering the intervening period and the explanation provided by the assessee for the remaining delay. The Tribunal relied on the principle that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice, as established in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in summarily rejecting additional evidence and failing to follow previous tribunal orders regarding the 50-50 revenue split model in the freight forwarding industry. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that ESOP discount is an employee cost and deductible during the vesting period. It followed the Bangalore Special Bench decision in Biocon Ltd. and the Madras High Court decision in PVP Ventures, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents and the assessee's statement, despite retraction, were sufficient to make additions for unexplained loans, interest, and investments. However, disallowances for Section 80C deductions were not based on incriminating material and were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the one-time life membership fee received by the assessee should not be treated as a revenue receipt. The consistent practice of the assessee and the principles of real income theory support its treatment as a capital receipt with a portion recognized over time.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not based on specified seized material. Furthermore, the receipts in question were repayments of the assessee's earlier advances/investments, not fresh unexplained cash credits. Therefore, the additions were rightly deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 275(1) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty order confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was quashed.

The Tribunal held that ESOP discount is an employee cost and deductible during the vesting period. It followed the Bangalore Special Bench decision in Biocon Ltd. and the Madras High Court decision in PVP Ventures, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10B is directory, not mandatory, citing a Gujarat High Court precedent. Therefore, the disallowance of the Section 11 exemption based solely on this procedural lapse was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal due to non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The previous orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal due to non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The previous orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal due to non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The previous orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal due to non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The previous orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal due to non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The previous orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal due to non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The previous orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal due to non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits. The previous orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matters were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10B is directory, not mandatory, citing a Gujarat High Court precedent. Therefore, the disallowance of the Section 11 exemption based solely on this procedural lapse was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal found no illegality or infirmity in the CIT(A)'s direction to set aside the appeal. The Revenue's challenge to this direction, based on the peculiar facts of the case, was rejected.