ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal held that Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) is obligated to pass an order on merits. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the allowability of these expenses needed further examination. It noted a lack of corroborating evidence for services rendered by certain individuals and the need to ascertain past practices. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings.

The tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on grounds of non-prosecution without deciding on merits is not permissible. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam HUF. The Tribunal found the PCIT's order unsustainable as it was based on an audit objection and overlooked binding Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the addition solely based on cash deposits, without considering the cash withdrawals made earlier in the same year for agricultural purposes, is not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the deposits were linked to withdrawals for agricultural activities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that Ms. Ira Wasson was the legal representative as per Section 2(29) of the IT Act (read with Section 2(11) of CPC) or that she had inherited any estate from her deceased husband. Citing a co-ordinate bench decision in Ms. Wasson's own case, the Tribunal concluded that the assessments were invalid in her name and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on account of bad debts, finding that the assessee fulfilled the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii). The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance, agreeing that it should be restricted to the amount of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received by the assessee from M/s. J.K. Developers was a genuine loan and not an unexplained cash credit. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided the loan agreement, confirmation from M/s. J.K. Developers, and details of the transaction. The Tribunal found that the identity of the creditor was established and that the transaction was not merely a book entry. The Tribunal reasoned that the AO had not brought any material on record to disprove the genuineness of the loan. The ratio decidendi is that once the assessee establishes the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the loan transaction, the onus shifts to the revenue to prove otherwise, and if the revenue fails to do so, the addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017, as settled by the Madras High Court. Based on the low tax effect computed, the appeal was found to be hit by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted all relevant evidence and that the CIT(Exemptions) had not adjudicated the matter on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals back to the Commissioner (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that Ms. Ira Wasson was the legal representative as per Section 2(29) of the IT Act (read with Section 2(11) of CPC) or that she had inherited any estate from her deceased husband. Citing a co-ordinate bench decision in Ms. Wasson's own case, the Tribunal concluded that the assessments were invalid in her name and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted all relevant evidence and that the CIT(Exemptions) had not adjudicated the matter on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals back to the Commissioner (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption)'s order was non-speaking and did not consider the assessee's supporting material. Therefore, the issue was restored back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that Ms. Ira Wasson was the legal representative as per Section 2(29) of the IT Act (read with Section 2(11) of CPC) or that she had inherited any estate from her deceased husband. Citing a co-ordinate bench decision in Ms. Wasson's own case, the Tribunal concluded that the assessments were invalid in her name and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS credit documents after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that Ms. Ira Wasson was the legal representative as per Section 2(29) of the IT Act (read with Section 2(11) of CPC) or that she had inherited any estate from her deceased husband. Citing a co-ordinate bench decision in Ms. Wasson's own case, the Tribunal concluded that the assessments were invalid in her name and dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

The tribunal noted that the Revenue did not oppose the assessee's request for withdrawal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Senior DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to furnish details and be heard. The CIT(E) was directed to issue notices via email.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one last opportunity to furnish details and be heard. The CIT(E) was directed to issue notices via email.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not properly present their case before the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The assessee was given liberty to make submissions before the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not properly present their case before the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The assessee was given liberty to make submissions before the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed the necessary forms. The Learned Senior DR had no objection to the withdrawal request.