ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2025

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

The Tribunal held that the issues were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own cases and by Supreme Court and High Court judgments. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were deleted.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee needed one more opportunity to present evidence regarding the source of investment, as no details were filed before the lower authorities. Both the lower authorities' orders were set aside and remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on admissions during surveys without corroborating evidence or subsequent verification. The assessee's explanations for loose papers were accepted, and the pressure exerted to obtain the surrender was noted as a violation of CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal held that the income from maintenance support and training services are intricately linked with the utilization of software and are not taxable as FTS. They also found that the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA was not satisfied, and the revenue did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise. The Tribunal relied on its previous decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. This failure to specify renders the notice and subsequent penalty order bad in law.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of forex derivative losses by following the High Court's decision. It also allowed the ground regarding notional interest on delayed receivables, stating the amendment to Section 92B was not applicable and no interest was charged from non-AEs.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue after providing the remand report to the assessee and offering an adequate opportunity of being heard. This was done without commenting on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) that deleted the additions. It noted that the statements relied upon by the AO were retracted, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and no malafide intent. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory, and that a delay in filing it should not lead to the denial of exemption if filed before the assessment is finalized. The delay in filing Form 10B was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's serious medical condition and caregiving responsibilities. The appeal was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) that deleted the additions. It noted that the statements relied upon by the AO were retracted, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) that deleted the additions. It noted that the statements relied upon by the AO were retracted, and the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under the old provisions of Section 148, dispatched after the effective date of the amended sections, was in violation of mandatory provisions. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this defective notice was set aside.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employee contributions to PF and ESI could not be made under Section 143(1) if the issue was debatable at the time of processing. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services was delivered after the processing for one of the assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the reason of the CA's mother-in-law's serious illness as sufficient cause, aligning with the principle of substantial justice. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de-novo) to be decided on merits, as the case had not been adjudicated on merits by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that subscription receipts do not constitute 'royalty' under the DTAA as they merely provide the use of copyrighted articles and do not involve the exploitation of a copyright. Consequently, these receipts are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities ought to have given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Additional evidence was admitted, and the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. In light of the assessee filing Form 1 to settle the appeal, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served as it was issued to a wrong address, despite the Assessing Officer being aware of the correct address. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a mere facilitator and was not the recipient of the money in real sense, nor the beneficiary. There was a genuine and bonafide belief that their actions were not in contravention of Section 269SS, and further, a reasonable cause was established under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the mere deduction of TDS by a payer does not automatically classify the assessee's activity as commercial, especially when the assessee's charitable nature is not in dispute. Following the ratio of the Delhi High Court in Aroh Foundation, the Tribunal found no merit in the CIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that for AY 2014-15, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 12A, which was not allowed by the CPC. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO with a direction to verify if the assessee has a valid registration under Section 12A and if all conditions for exemption were fulfilled. If so, the exemption under Section 12A should be allowed. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes. For AY 2019-20, the Tribunal observed that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 12A and filed Audit Report in Form 10B within the statutory time. The lower authorities had disallowed exemption under Section 10(23C) for want of Audit Report in Form 10BB. The Tribunal found that this aspect, i.e., the claim for Section 12A exemption and the timely filing of Form 10B, was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the valid registration under Section 12A and, if found correct, allow exemption under Section 12A, as the necessary Audit Report in Form 10B was filed within the statutory timeline. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the calculation of turnover for F&O trading, as per the ICAI guidance note, should consider the aggregate of favourable and unfavourable differences (profits + losses), not the entire sales/purchase consideration. Since the assessee's turnover as per this method was below the Rs 10 crore threshold for mandatory tax audit, the penalty under Section 271B was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that in cases where assessment was completed under Section 147 despite subsequent compliance by the assessee, levying penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is not justified. Furthermore, the appeals were not maintainable under Section 249(4)(b) as the assessee had indeed filed its return and paid self-assessment tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a mere facilitator and was not the recipient of the money in real sense, nor the beneficiary. There was a genuine and bonafide belief that their actions were not in contravention of Section 269SS, and further, a reasonable cause was established under Section 273B.

The Tribunal decided both sets of issues. Regarding the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 904 & 905/DEL/2025), the Tribunal noted that while there was non-compliance, the assessment was completed under Section 147 based on the assessee's compliance with subsequent notices. Therefore, it was not justified to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(b). The penalty was accordingly deleted, and these appeals were allowed. For the other appeals (ITA Nos. 901, 902 & 903/DEL/2025), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on a mistaken understanding that the assessee had not filed its return of income and had not deposited the tax. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed Form 35, clearly indicating the filing of the return and payment of self-assessment tax, thus making the appeals maintainable under Section 249(4)(b). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeals and adjudicate them on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. These appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio is that penalties for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) may not be sustainable if the assessment is completed under Section 147 and subsequent compliance is made, and that appeals should not be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) if the assessee has demonstrably filed returns and paid taxes.

The Tribunal decided both sets of issues. Regarding the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 904 & 905/DEL/2025), the Tribunal noted that while there was non-compliance, the assessment was completed under Section 147 based on the assessee's compliance with subsequent notices. Therefore, it was not justified to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(b). The penalty was accordingly deleted, and these appeals were allowed. For the other appeals (ITA Nos. 901, 902 & 903/DEL/2025), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on a mistaken understanding that the assessee had not filed its return of income and had not deposited the tax. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed Form 35, clearly indicating the filing of the return and payment of self-assessment tax, thus making the appeals maintainable under Section 249(4)(b). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeals and adjudicate them on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. These appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio is that penalties for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) may not be sustainable if the assessment is completed under Section 147 and subsequent compliance is made, and that appeals should not be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) if the assessee has demonstrably filed returns and paid taxes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed by the CIT(A) when it was not initiated by the AO. The jurisdiction assumed by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with law, and the notice was also not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found it fit to grant a further opportunity to the assessee by remitting the issues back to the Ld. CIT(E) for reconsideration after the assessee provides necessary documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that to prevent miscarriage of justice, the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to be heard and to produce necessary documents before the Ld. CIT(E). The appeals were remitted back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal decided both sets of issues. Regarding the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 904 & 905/DEL/2025), the Tribunal noted that while there was non-compliance, the assessment was completed under Section 147 based on the assessee's compliance with subsequent notices. Therefore, it was not justified to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(b). The penalty was accordingly deleted, and these appeals were allowed. For the other appeals (ITA Nos. 901, 902 & 903/DEL/2025), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on a mistaken understanding that the assessee had not filed its return of income and had not deposited the tax. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed Form 35, clearly indicating the filing of the return and payment of self-assessment tax, thus making the appeals maintainable under Section 249(4)(b). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeals and adjudicate them on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. These appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio is that penalties for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) may not be sustainable if the assessment is completed under Section 147 and subsequent compliance is made, and that appeals should not be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) if the assessee has demonstrably filed returns and paid taxes.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on admissions during surveys without corroborating evidence or subsequent verification. The assessee's explanations for loose papers were accepted, and the pressure exerted to obtain the surrender was noted as a violation of CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 on or after 1.4.2021 for reopening assessments for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment made based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio.

The Tribunal decided both sets of issues. Regarding the penalty appeals (ITA Nos. 904 & 905/DEL/2025), the Tribunal noted that while there was non-compliance, the assessment was completed under Section 147 based on the assessee's compliance with subsequent notices. Therefore, it was not justified to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(b). The penalty was accordingly deleted, and these appeals were allowed. For the other appeals (ITA Nos. 901, 902 & 903/DEL/2025), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals based on a mistaken understanding that the assessee had not filed its return of income and had not deposited the tax. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed Form 35, clearly indicating the filing of the return and payment of self-assessment tax, thus making the appeals maintainable under Section 249(4)(b). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeals and adjudicate them on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard. These appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The ratio is that penalties for non-compliance with notices under Section 142(1) may not be sustainable if the assessment is completed under Section 147 and subsequent compliance is made, and that appeals should not be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b) if the assessee has demonstrably filed returns and paid taxes.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under section 36(1)(va) regarding employees' PF and ESI contributions could not be made under section 143(1) if the issue was debatable at the time of processing. For AY 2020-21, the disallowance was invalid as the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services was not yet delivered. For AY 2022-23, the disallowance was also deemed unjustified as the issue remained debatable prior to the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without being heard. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded to this fact. The Tribunal acknowledged that despite opportunities granted by the lower authorities, the assessee did not file submissions, leading the AO to complete the assessment ex-parte and the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims and decide the issue as per facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the AO and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The specific disallowances upheld by the CIT(A) were based on the lack of evidence provided by the assessee, non-compliance with TDS provisions (Section 40(a)(ia)), non-compliance with deposit timelines for employee PF/ESI contributions (Section 36(1)(va)), failure to establish genuineness of business promotion expenses, lack of evidence for leave encashment provision (Section 43B), and classification of membership/subscription expenses as personal rather than business-related, citing judicial precedents like Goodles Nerolac Paints Ltd., CIT vs T.S. Hajee Moosa & Co., CIT vs Alom Extrusions Ltd., Assam Pesticides & Agro Chemicals vs CIT, Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. vs CIT, and L. Jairam Parwani vs DCIT. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of these disallowances but remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, directing them to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim and decide the issue as per facts and law, as both lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the entire amount was not unexplained. It directed the Assessing Officer to consider only Rs. 65,000/- as unexplained, representing the peak amount after considering re-deposits.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of approval under Section 80G(5)(iii) and the subsequent cancellation of provisional registration were not sustainable in law. The CIT(E) was directed to grant relief accordingly.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay, stating that due to COVID-19, the appeal was not filed within time, and had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits, as the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the CIT(A), being satisfied with the explanation rendered by the assessee. The order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), being satisfied with the explanation rendered by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time, attributing the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the matter on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the substantive grounds of appeal, as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10IE is a directory provision and failure to file it along with the return should not deny the assessee the benefit of the new tax regime. The assessee's grievance was accepted.

The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to consider the documents to be furnished by the assessee and grant an opportunity of being heard before passing orders.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities did not give due weightage to the assessee's socio-economic status and past savings. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 1,39,000/- was deemed just and proper, with the condition that it should not be treated as a precedent.