ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

The Assessing Officer's counsel did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn, as per the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, proceedings u/s 153C can be initiated up to 10 years from the year of satisfaction. Since the satisfaction was recorded in 2021, the notice could only be issued up to AY 2013-14. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings for AY 2009-10 was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities assessed the assessee's entire receipts as business income without allowing expenditure deductions for net income. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to examine the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that while the action in principle was not faulted, treating the entire sales as bogus under Section 68 was not sustainable. Instead, only the profit element was to be considered.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal noted that communication gaps during virtual hearings might have prevented the assessee from presenting all evidence. Considering the possibility of procedural lapses and the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the grounds for which the appeal was filed had been allowed to the assessee due to the rectification order and the subsequent appeal effect order. Therefore, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal noted that communication gaps during virtual hearings might have prevented the assessee from presenting all evidence. Considering the possibility of procedural lapses and the interest of justice, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the merits of the case and the submitted documents. It found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard before the rejection.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted potential issues with virtual hearings and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was without jurisdiction because no notice under Section 153C was issued to the assessee for the relevant assessment year, despite the satisfaction note being drawn later. The assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and a lack of effective compliance with section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the management fees received by the assessee are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA. The Tribunal clarified that for the 'make available' clause to be invoked, the technical knowledge and skill must remain with the service recipient even after the contract ends, enabling them to deploy similar technology or techniques independently without recourse to the service provider. Mere incidental advantage is insufficient. In this case, the services were primarily operational support, ensuring consistency with global brand standards, and did not result in the transfer of technology or knowledge that Criteo India could apply independently in the future. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made on this ground. Consequently, Ground No. 5, concerning surcharge and cess on treaty rates, became academic and was not deliberated upon. Regarding interest under Section 234A, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the return was filed within the extended due date and allowed the ground, directing that no interest be levied. Ground No. 6.2, concerning interest under Section 234B, was dismissed as charging such interest is mandatory and consequential. For Ground No. 6.3, concerning the adjustment of refunds, the AO was directed to examine the assessee's contentions and re-compute the demand payable after verification, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and did not properly consider the documents submitted. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and did not properly consider the documents submitted. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the merits of the case and the submitted documents. It found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard before the rejection.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee was a hotelier and directed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the unexplained deposits, to not be treated as a precedent. Furthermore, Section 115BBE was deemed applicable only for transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely based on Section 249(4)(b) when the assessee had filed its return and paid the due tax. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. Given the technical glitches on the portal and the fact that the form was filed before processing under Section 143(1), the delay, if any, should be condoned.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration by the CIT(E) was not justified because the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a decision after proper hearing and verification of documents.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration by the CIT(E) was not justified because the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard. The issues were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a decision after proper hearing and verification of documents.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are maintainable. The reasoning was that the Assessing Officer had passed an order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the CIT(A) had passed an order, which was then challenged by both the assessee and the Revenue through their respective appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no impediment to entertain these cross-appeals. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on the substantive issues related to the deductibility of expenses in this part of the judgment, as the focus was on the maintainability of the appeals. The operative direction was to proceed with the hearing of the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the minimum prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the retrospective applicability of the circular. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was indeed barred by limitation. This was based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions which established that notices issued after March 31, 2022, for the relevant assessment years, were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the land sold was a capital asset needed to be adjudicated afresh. The addition on account of household expenditure withdrawal was deleted, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was indeed barred by limitation. This was based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions which established that notices issued after March 31, 2022, for the relevant assessment years, were invalid.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning customer acquisition costs, upholding the CIT(A)'s order which disallowed a significant portion of these expenses.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction from the prescribed authority, citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal, taking into account the submission made by the Assessee's Representative regarding opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, decided to dismiss the appeals. Liberty was granted to the Assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if advised.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was running a pharmacy business but had not reconciled his books of account to the satisfaction of the authorities. Consequently, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, providing relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal, taking into account the submission made by the Assessee's Representative regarding opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, decided to dismiss the appeals. Liberty was granted to the Assessee to seek restoration of the appeals if advised.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO for AY 2013-14 was a double addition as the amounts were already accounted for as sales receipts. The additions for AY 2014-15 were also deleted as the CIT(A) found merit in the assessee's explanation and cross-verified trade receivables.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of pre-operating expenses by following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It also allowed depreciation on 3G spectrum license costs and deleted penalties for non-compliance with subscriber verification obligations.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was indeed barred by limitation. This was based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions which established that notices issued after March 31, 2022, for the relevant assessment years, were invalid.

The Tribunal decided that the Transfer Pricing Officer erred in determining a NIL arm's length price for technical consultancy services without proper comparable analysis. It also noted issues with TDS credit and interest calculations.

The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the unit as independent and new in the first year, the deduction under Section 10AA cannot be denied in subsequent years. The Tribunal also noted there is no provision in Section 10AA to bifurcate the exemption.

The Tribunal directed the AO to take the same benchmarking for interest on loans as accepted by the Revenue in subsequent years, applying the principle of consistency. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow working capital adjustment as mandated by the rules.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of Rs.15,00,000/- from the addition, as this part of the payment was considered substantiated by the assessee and not rebutted by the Revenue. However, the balance addition of Rs.34,50,000/- was upheld. The second appeal regarding Rs.18,00,000/- was dismissed as the assessee failed to discharge her onus.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of Rs.15,00,000/- from the addition, as this part of the payment was considered substantiated by the assessee and not rebutted by the Revenue. However, the balance addition of Rs.34,50,000/- was upheld. The second appeal regarding Rs.18,00,000/- was dismissed as the assessee failed to discharge her onus.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte nature of the CIT(E)'s order and potential communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned a delay in filing the appeal and decided to restore the appeal back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, considering potential communication gaps.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by making additions on issues not part of the limited scrutiny. The Tribunal relied on CBDT instructions and judicial precedents stating that the scope of limited scrutiny cannot be expanded without proper procedure.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. It was held that communication gaps, especially with the virtual hearing mechanism, could not be ruled out. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.