ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal has not yet provided its decision in the provided text. The judgment is still in the introductory phase, outlining the parties and the nature of the appeals.

The Tribunal is hearing multiple appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The judgment excerpt does not contain the specific decision or reasoning of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was invalid as it was a common and composite order for multiple assessment years, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal is hearing the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A). The specific grounds and decisions are not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal addressed two primary sets of issues. Firstly, regarding the disallowance of job charges, the Tribunal noted that the facts and submissions in the lead case of Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2016-17 were similar to other appeals involving job charges. By following the observations made in the lead case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessees concerning these disallowances. This implies that the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances of job charges in these cases. Secondly, concerning the additional claim of deduction under section 80JJAA, the Tribunal found that the claim was made in a revised return filed under section 139(5) prior to the notice under section 153A. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly examined this additional claim. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the additional claim and allow it if found in accordance with the law. Consequently, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 231/Del/2024 for AY 2018-19, which pertained to this issue, was partly allowed.

The Tribunal found that the explanation for a portion of the gift amount (Rs. 8,36,430) required further factual verification, especially in light of a subsequent order from IBS-V, Mumbai. The CIT(A) had not examined the assessee's claim in detail with respect to this order.

The Tribunal held that under Section 71(2) of the Income-tax Act, business losses (non-speculative) from F&O trading can be set off against capital gains, with a specific exclusion for salary income as per Section 71(2A). The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the TPO pertaining to interest on outstanding receivables was unsustainable in law, following previous rulings in the assessee's own case. Additionally, the rejection of the deduction claimed under Section 80G was found to be illegal and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was invalid as it was a common and composite order for multiple assessment years, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was invalid as it was a common and composite order for multiple assessment years, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal addressed two primary sets of issues. Firstly, regarding the disallowance of job charges, the Tribunal noted that the facts and submissions in the lead case of Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2016-17 were similar to other appeals involving job charges. By following the observations made in the lead case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessees concerning these disallowances. This implies that the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances of job charges in these cases. Secondly, concerning the additional claim of deduction under section 80JJAA, the Tribunal found that the claim was made in a revised return filed under section 139(5) prior to the notice under section 153A. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly examined this additional claim. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the additional claim and allow it if found in accordance with the law. Consequently, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 231/Del/2024 for AY 2018-19, which pertained to this issue, was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was invalid as it was a common and composite order for multiple assessment years, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal addressed two primary sets of issues. Firstly, regarding the disallowance of job charges, the Tribunal noted that the facts and submissions in the lead case of Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2016-17 were similar to other appeals involving job charges. By following the observations made in the lead case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessees concerning these disallowances. This implies that the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances of job charges in these cases. Secondly, concerning the additional claim of deduction under section 80JJAA, the Tribunal found that the claim was made in a revised return filed under section 139(5) prior to the notice under section 153A. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly examined this additional claim. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the additional claim and allow it if found in accordance with the law. Consequently, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 231/Del/2024 for AY 2018-19, which pertained to this issue, was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's conclusion was not justified due to internal contradictions in the MOU and lack of corroborative evidence. The MOU itself was considered a casual document, not legally sound for transferring property owned by companies. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that 'Fulford India' was validly included as a comparable for the distribution segment, finding its business of wholesale trading of medicines to be sufficiently similar. However, the issue of whether 'Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd.' and 'Nureca Limited' failed the Related Party Transaction (RPT) filters was remanded back to the AO/TPO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings by the ITO and subsequent completion by the ACIT without a valid jurisdictional transfer order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act was without proper jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were rendered illegal, unsustainable in law, and void ab initio. The tribunal relied on *M/s Boutique International Pvt Ltd vs ITO* and did not delve into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D was invalid as it was a common and composite order for multiple assessment years, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, finding that it goes to the root of the matter and concerns the assumption of jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue admitted that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti, the Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a Section 143(2) notice is mandatory when the Assessing Officer does not accept the return on its face value, and its absence vitiates the entire proceedings. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the return was non-est, especially since the assessment order itself mentioned the issuance of notices under Sections 142(2) and 143(2). Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment order. The other grounds of appeal concerning additions on merits were not decided as the appeal was allowed on the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years and assessees. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years on the same day. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC allowed the appeal without calling for a remand report or verifying documents. The Assessing Officer correctly added the profit and cash deposits as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue are allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without specific consideration for each. Consequently, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was based on fundamentally wrong facts and was an opinion rather than a belief formed on correct facts. The AO also failed to deal with the assessee's objections, thus not assuming proper jurisdiction.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the factual findings of the lower tax authorities, which concluded that the share sales were accommodation entries and undisclosed income, given the minimal account balances before and after the credits.

The Tribunal held that the late filing of Form 10CCB is not fatal to claiming the Section 80IA deduction, citing Supreme Court and other Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal also found that the disallowance of business promotion and travelling expenses was not justified based on the evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the medical certificate. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte for non-prosecution, as the assessee's AR failed to inform the assessee about hearings. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the medical certificate. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte for non-prosecution, as the assessee's AR failed to inform the assessee about hearings. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the medical certificate. The appeals were dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte for non-prosecution, as the assessee's AR failed to inform the assessee about hearings. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the petition filed by the assessee seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The petition clearly stated that the appellant had decided not to pursue the appeals and requested that they be dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal found no impediment to allowing this request. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal considered the petition filed by the assessee seeking withdrawal of the appeals. The petition clearly stated that the appellant had decided not to pursue the appeals and requested that they be dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal found no impediment to allowing this request. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was not obtained for each assessment year, which is a violation of the provisions of Section 153D. The Tribunal noted that the Additional Commissioner granted a common approval for various assessees and various assessment years in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. This was evidenced by the fact that draft assessment orders for 123 cases, spanning 123 assessment years, were approved on December 31, 2017, which the Tribunal found to be humanly impossible to review thoroughly in one day. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in PCIT vs. Siddharth Gupta, PCIT vs. Subodh Agarwal, and PCIT vs. Sapna Gupta, as well as the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal, and a coordinate bench's decision in Tish Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. The Tribunal concluded that a consolidated approval for multiple assessees and assessment years renders the requirement of approval for 'each assessment year' nugatory. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act for AY 2016-17 was quashed. As the assessment was quashed based on this ground, other grounds raised by the assessee were left open and not decided.

The Tribunal addressed two primary sets of issues. Firstly, regarding the disallowance of job charges, the Tribunal noted that the facts and submissions in the lead case of Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2016-17 were similar to other appeals involving job charges. By following the observations made in the lead case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessees concerning these disallowances. This implies that the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances of job charges in these cases. Secondly, concerning the additional claim of deduction under section 80JJAA, the Tribunal found that the claim was made in a revised return filed under section 139(5) prior to the notice under section 153A. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly examined this additional claim. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the additional claim and allow it if found in accordance with the law. Consequently, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 231/Del/2024 for AY 2018-19, which pertained to this issue, was partly allowed.

The Tribunal addressed two primary sets of issues. Firstly, regarding the disallowance of job charges, the Tribunal noted that the facts and submissions in the lead case of Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2016-17 were similar to other appeals involving job charges. By following the observations made in the lead case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessees concerning these disallowances. This implies that the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances of job charges in these cases. Secondly, concerning the additional claim of deduction under section 80JJAA, the Tribunal found that the claim was made in a revised return filed under section 139(5) prior to the notice under section 153A. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities had not properly examined this additional claim. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the additional claim and allow it if found in accordance with the law. Consequently, the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 231/Del/2024 for AY 2018-19, which pertained to this issue, was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that disallowance for delayed deposits of employee's contribution could not be made through rectification proceedings under Section 154, as the issue was debatable and the assessee should not suffer due to a subsequent court decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision. The assessee is to be given another opportunity to submit the required information and documents.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of depreciation on goodwill was already decided in favour of the assessee, the penalty related to it was deleted. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40A(3), the Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all particulars and had a bona fide belief that the payments were not covered under the section, hence no penalty could be imposed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, confirming additions related to payments to Vani Designs and unexplained investment but set aside the issue of bogus purchases to the AO for verification. The addition for cash deposits was also partly confirmed, with a direction not to invoke Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not examined the issue on merits and dismissed the appeal, denying the assessee an opportunity to contest the issue. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after due notice to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 60,13,252/- as unexplained deposit was unjustified and liable to be deleted. It noted that the impugned credit was not a cash deposit and that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, which was considered by the AO in the remand report.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to contest the issues on merits and restored the matters to the NFAC/CIT(A) for a fresh decision after issuing a new notice.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 153D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was mechanical and perfunctory, lacking application of mind. The Tribunal noted that the approval memo was silent on the subject matter of additions and merely stated that the draft assessment order was approved. This ritualistic approval, without any discernible thoughtful process, vitiates the assessment order. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of judgments in ACIT vs Serajuddin & Co. (Orissa High Court), PCIT vs Anuj Bansal, PCIT vs Shiv Kumar Nayyar, and PCIT vs Subhash Dabas, which held that a mechanical approval under section 153D invalidates the assessment order. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on this preliminary ground and did not consider other legal and factual contentions. The operative direction was to quash the assessment order.

The Tribunal followed previous decisions of co-ordinate benches which held that the shares in question were not penny stocks. The Tribunal found no cogent material on record to link the assessee to any dubious transactions or manipulation of share prices.

The Tribunal held that the issuance and proper service of statutory notices are fundamental to Income Tax proceedings. Failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) before finalizing a reassessment order, even with assessee's participation, is a jurisdictional defect.

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

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without specific consideration. Consequently, the assessment orders are annulled.

The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment could be made on account of interest on outstanding receivables if the assessee's margin was higher than comparable companies and if the assessee neither charged nor paid interest in its normal business operations. The arbitrary addition of a mark-up to the LIBOR rate was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the issuance and proper service of statutory notices are fundamental to Income Tax proceedings. Failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) before finalizing a reassessment order, even with assessee's participation, is a jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases from Rajdhani Sales Corporation, as the seller was not found at the given address and payments were withdrawn in cash. The reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were also found to be valid.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal found that the JCIT had granted a combined approval for multiple assessment years and cases, which indicated a lack of independent application of mind and a mechanical process. The Tribunal noted that Section 153D mandates prior approval from the Joint Commissioner for assessment orders passed under Section 153A, and this approval must be obtained separately for each assessment year. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT, Circle-1 (2) Vs. Serajuddin and Co., which emphasized the need for judicious application of mind by the approving authority. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for all the relevant assessment years as they were rendered non-est and a nullity due to the invalid approval. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the other grounds raised by the assessee, as they became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was made available to the assessee on e-proceedings on 01.04.2021 and was viewed by the assessee on 08.04.2021. Therefore, the notice was issued after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had concluded that since the notice was issued after 01.04.2021, it should have been validated as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal's case. The CIT(A) had found that the AO did not validate the notice, rendering it invalid and the reassessment void ab initio. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) which had correctly applied the ratio of the decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Sumanjeet Agarwal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The issue of lack of independent application of mind by the AO, raised by the assessee under Rule 27, was not adjudicated by the Tribunal as the reassessment was quashed on the primary ground of invalid notice.