ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

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 held that depreciation on UPS is allowable at 60% and annual maintenance charges for software are revenue expenditure. It also affirmed the disallowance of certain R&D and 80JJAA expenses. Prior period expenses were allowed, and the disallowance on depreciation for commercial vehicles was directed to be re-examined based on eligibility for 50% depreciation.

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 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 approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and not indicative of application of mind, as required by law. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

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 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 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 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 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 directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider the TPO's order giving effect to DRP directions and re-compute the assessee's income. Since the TPO made no adjustment, there was no grievance for the assessee.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were unabated, as a search action under section 132 was conducted on 19.10.2010, leading to section 153A proceedings. Following the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Builwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), the Tribunal noted that additions in unabated assessments must be based solely on seized or incriminating material. Upon perusal of the assessment discussion, the Tribunal found no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned additions under section 68 based on any such incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to delete the additions of Rs. 22,18,160/- for AY 2006-07 and Rs. 59,60,198/- for AY 2007-08. The ratio decidendi is that section 68 additions in unabated assessment years, initiated under section 153A, are invalid if not supported by seized or incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was bonafide and a sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal observed that communication gaps could not be ruled out and noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were unabated, as a search action under section 132 was conducted on 19.10.2010, leading to section 153A proceedings. Following the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PCIT Vs. Abhisar Builwell P. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC), the Tribunal noted that additions in unabated assessments must be based solely on seized or incriminating material. Upon perusal of the assessment discussion, the Tribunal found no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the Assessing Officer had made the impugned additions under section 68 based on any such incriminating material. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to delete the additions of Rs. 22,18,160/- for AY 2006-07 and Rs. 59,60,198/- for AY 2007-08. The ratio decidendi is that section 68 additions in unabated assessment years, initiated under section 153A, are invalid if not supported by seized or incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 1,15,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2016-17 and Rs. 1,10,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2017-18 was not justified. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had failed to appreciate the nature of the expenses and the business of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. The Tribunal relied on the principle that once the assessee establishes the business expediency and genuineness of an expenditure, the AO cannot substitute his own judgment for that of the businessman. The ratio decidendi is that expenses incurred for the purpose of business, supported by evidence, should be allowed as deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The operative direction was the deletion of the disallowed expenses. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D is administrative in nature and the approving authority (Joint CIT) is competent. The Tribunal found no evidence of mechanical approval or non-application of mind by the approving authority, considering the context of search assessments and CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard and that complete details were not filed. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside, and the issue was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the approval granted under section 153D was deficit in content and did not reflect an application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the sales to M/s Parmanand and Sons food Pvt. Ltd. as bogus. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal found that the assessee had responded to queries and the AO ignored these. The purchases were held to be genuine, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that blank letterheads, without any content, cannot be considered incriminating material to form the basis for any addition under Section 153A. Following the landmark decision in Abhisar Buildwell, the assessments were quashed as the foundation itself did not exist.

The Tribunal held that blank letterheads, without any content, cannot be considered incriminating material to form the basis for any addition under Section 153A. Following the landmark decision in Abhisar Buildwell, the assessments were quashed as the foundation itself did not exist.