ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The assessee successfully provided evidence, including bank statements and affidavits, to substantiate the creditworthiness of the sources of funds (father and cousin) for the property purchase.

The Tribunal held that the provision for site restoration obligations (SRO/ARO) was a real and crystallized liability, not contingent, as the lease expiry dates were known. The provision was made on a scientific basis and was allowable as a business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the AO had invoked Section 145(3) before referring to the DVO, but the assessee's objections to the DVO's report were not properly addressed. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 11(6) was prospective, allowing depreciation claims.

The Tribunal held that the AO had invoked Section 145(3) before referring to the DVO, but the assessee's objections to the DVO's report were not properly addressed. Regarding depreciation, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling that the amendment to Section 11(6) was prospective, allowing depreciation claims.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO was indeed barred by limitation. As a consequence, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the Section 153D approval obtained by the AO covered assessment years 2008-09 to 2017-18, conspicuously omitting AY 2018-19. As a mandatory prior approval under Section 153D was not secured for AY 2018-19, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) for that year was deemed void ab initio. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's Rule 27 application was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the interest on CCDs denominated in Indian currency should be benchmarked using domestic interest rates like the Prime Lending Rate (PLR), not international rates like LIBOR. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO to re-evaluate the adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly explained the sources of the cash deposits. The revenue failed to prove that the cash withdrawals and receipts were already spent, thus not available as a source.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a golf club registered under Section 12A. For AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the AO added interest income as income from other sources, and the CIT(A) upheld these additions, doubting the assessee's activities and relying on the principle of mutuality. However, the Tribunal observed that in AY 2018-19, the AO, in an order dated 04.03.2021, did not treat the interest income as taxable and considered the assessee as a business enterprise in the absence of ineligibility under Sections 11 and 12. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. The matters were restored to the AO for verification of facts and figures presented in paragraph 7 of the synopsis and to pass a fresh order, keeping in view the AO's order for AY 2018-19, after providing the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing. No other grounds were argued or left undecided.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. It granted the assessee liberty to recall the order if the scheme's process is not successfully completed.

The Tribunal decided to deal with the grounds of appeal by framing issues. The first issue addressed substantive and protective additions made concerning international transactions of AMP expenses, based on an 'intensity approach' and 'Bright Line Test'.

The Tribunal held that the interest on CCDs denominated in Indian currency should be benchmarked using domestic interest rates like the Prime Lending Rate (PLR), not international rates like LIBOR. The matter was remanded to the AO/TPO to re-evaluate the adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including running a golf course with ancillary facilities like a restaurant and swimming pool, were not purely charitable. The surplus generated was not solely for the furtherance of charitable objects but also for the benefit of members, thus not qualifying for exemption under Section 11(1)(c).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the payment to Sh. Dorian Punj was for commercial services rendered as per a valid agreement. The Tribunal noted that the payment was commercial in nature and had led to a significant increase in the assessee's turnover and profits.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was to provide the assessee a further opportunity to represent their case effectively after considering all evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was to provide the assessee a further opportunity to represent their case effectively after considering all evidence.

The Tribunal decided to deal with the grounds of appeal by framing them as issues. The first issue addressed relates to substantive additions made using an 'Intensity approach' and protective additions based on the 'Bright Line Test' concerning alleged international transactions of AMP expenses.

The Tribunal held that registration u/s 12AB and 80G cannot be denied solely on the ground that the assessee has not incurred expenses or carried out activities, especially when the genuineness and charitable nature of the objects are not doubted. The assessee is a newly registered trust and the law does not mandate a waiting period or prior activities for such registration.

The Tribunal held that registration u/s 12AB and 80G cannot be denied solely on the ground that the assessee has not incurred expenses or carried out activities, especially when the genuineness and charitable nature of the objects are not doubted. The assessee is a newly registered trust and the law does not mandate a waiting period or prior activities for such registration.

The Tribunal decided to deal with the grounds of appeal as issues, with the first issue relating to substantive additions for AY 2015-16 and protective additions in all three AYs concerning alleged international transactions of AMP expenses based on the Bright Line Test (BLT).

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to request a recall of the order if they are unsuccessful in getting through the scheme.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds in the shape of partners' capital to make the interest-free advance to the partner. Following the Supreme Court judgment in Hero Cycles and Reliance Industries Ltd., it was held that since mixed funds were available, the advance could be presumed to be out of interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds regarding the denial of adjournment and lack of opportunity for hearing were sustained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the addition was sustained by the CIT(A) ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had some success in explaining the source of cash deposits, there was an element of failure in fully explaining all deposits. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 10 lakh was deemed appropriate and just. Regarding the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE, the Tribunal followed the Madras High Court ruling, stating it applies from 01.04.2017 onwards, and directed taxation under normal provisions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer were invalid because they did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. This was found to be a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition was sustained by the CIT(A) ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act regarding these additions, which was pending disposal. The Tribunal directed the Jurisdictional AO to dispose of the rectification application on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee and verifying evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's contention that the notice for penalty was vague was rejected.

The tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and, following the precedent of the Madras High Court, decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds regarding the denial of adjournment and lack of opportunity for hearing were sustained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds regarding the denial of adjournment and lack of opportunity for hearing were sustained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal noted the non-compliance but considered the entirety of facts and the interest of justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as a single approval was given for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of each case. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the case files. The specific outcome of the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but it indicates the appeals are related to proceedings under section 153C.

The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and restricted the addition under Section 68 to Rs. 2,44,461/- for one specific loan where documentation was missing. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the onus for other loans.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as a single approval was given for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of each case. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash deposits through sale proceeds of business goods to be sufficiently justified. The addition made by the AO under Section 69A was considered not justified.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening under Section 147 was valid, the addition of the entire amount of Rs. 23,70,740/- under Section 68 was not justified as it pertained to purchases made in the ordinary course of business. The addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchase amount.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 171 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on technical grounds without considering the merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications on their merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on technical grounds without considering the merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications on their merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted the non-compliance but considered the entirety of facts and the interest of justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as a single approval was given for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of each case. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as a single approval was given for multiple assessment years without specific consideration of each case. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the donors. The AO's findings about the bogus nature of the concerns providing donations were not controverted by the assessee.

The Tribunal heard both parties and perused the case files. The core of the dispute relates to the initiation of Section 153C proceedings and the subsequent assessments made by the Assessing Officer.