ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

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 additions cannot be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra). The assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed.

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of the purchases from Rajdhani Sales Corporation, as the seller was not found at the given address and payments were withdrawn in cash.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 notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred, as it was issued after the extended due date. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 20-07-2022 was time-barred. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal (Supra), the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.

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 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 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 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 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 Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of INR 14,68,33,866/- on account of job charges. The reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had considered the submissions of the assessee and the remand report of the AO, and after detailed findings, concluded that the expenses were genuine. The Revenue's grounds of appeal, which challenged the deletion of the disallowance and questioned the genuineness of the expenses, were not accepted. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to treat the job charges as genuine expenses was based on a thorough examination of the facts and evidence. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were also disposed of in line with the main appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 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 additions on account of cessation of liability and cash deposits were not substantiated by the lower authorities. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided necessary details and the lower authorities failed to properly examine bank statements and financials.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rejected Microland Limited based on a turnover of less than Rs. 1 crore, but the financials indicated a turnover of Rs. 1,341,567,000. The Tribunal found that the AO had rightly accepted Microland Limited based on functional comparability as it was engaged in similar IT enabled services, and segmental information was available. Therefore, Microland Limited should be included in the final set of comparable companies. Regarding grounds 10 and 11 concerning TCS e-Serve International Limited and TCS e-Serve Limited, the Tribunal noted that the TPO had given working capital adjustment benefits, and the assessee had filed an application for giving effect to the CIT(A) order. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after affording a fair opportunity of hearing. Grounds of appeal 1 to 8 and 11 to 16 were not pressed and were left open. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal expressly left undecided grounds 1 to 8 and 11 to 16.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rectifying its earlier order based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment. The rectification was not permissible as the original order was passed based on the law prevailing at that time.

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 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 Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be applied considering the peculiar circumstances. Since the inability to construct was beyond the assessee's control due to external factors like highway disputes and builder issues, the assessee is eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal considered the detailed explanation and additional evidences furnished by the assessee, including salary registers, Form 16, and ID proofs of employees. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a sheet detailing the respective employees, period of salary, and the employer who credited the funds. Supporting evidences were also filed. The Tribunal observed that the pattern of credits, particularly concerning multiple salary payments to employees, was primarily linked to the demonetization period and was explained as being on behalf of friends or kins. No such pattern was observed pre-demonetization. The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated that there was no case of booking multiple salary expenditures. Therefore, the deletion of disallowances made by the AO of job charges by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld, holding the same as genuine expenses. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

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 Ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of job charges amounting to ₹14,68,33,866/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including salary sheets, ledger accounts, bills, computation of income, 26AS statements, financial statements, tax audit reports, and bank statements of the job workers. These documents established that the job workers had indeed provided services to the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the income declared by these job workers was not doubted by the AO, even after alleging the payments to them were bogus. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee, being a renowned name in the garment industry, relied on skilled job workers for manufacturing designer garments. The fact that the AO did not doubt the purchases of raw material or the sales of garments further supported the necessity of job work. The Tribunal concluded that the job charges were genuine expenses incurred for manufacturing the garments. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal has consolidated multiple appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A). The specific decision on the merits of the appeals is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

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 heard the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A). The specific details of the CIT(A)'s orders and the Tribunal's findings are not provided in the excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 190 crores on the ground of double taxation was not justified as the appellate proceedings for the other companies were not final. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing on merits regarding the addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had proceeded on a fundamental factual error, wrongly assuming the assessee purchased the property instead of selling it. Based on the documentary evidence, including the sale deed, the Tribunal concluded that the basis for reopening the assessment under Section 148 and framing it under Section 143(3) for an unexplained investment was baseless. Consequently, the addition of ₹40 lakhs was deleted, and the assessment framed was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's registration u/s 12AA was granted in 2011 and was never cancelled. The AO's denial of exemption and the NFAC's upholding of it were set aside. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order to set aside the assessment and direct a fresh assessment. The CIT(A) acted within the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the AO's satisfaction for reopening the assessment was based on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing without independent inquiry. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the AO's reasoning and the lack of proper application of mind to relevant materials, including prior assessments of alleged entry providers.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had raised a specific plea of non-service of notices. Inquiry should have been conducted by the authorities, especially since the property used as the address was sold long before the notices were issued and the assessee's Form-16 would have contained the correct address. The facts and circumstances did not warrant the levy of penalty.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to satisfy the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The PCIT did not conduct sufficient inquiry to establish the error or prejudice, making the revisionary order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that while the genuineness of some creditors was doubtful due to cash payments in small sums, the purchases made from these parties were sold and accepted by the department. Therefore, a partial disallowance was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 144C(13) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed time-barred, null, and void.

The Tribunal found that the addition for share trading income was made without proper justification and deleted it. It also held that the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses was excessive and reduced it to 10%. The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal on the issue of agricultural income based on a previous decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The assessee argued that the classification of rental income as 'house property income' was consistently accepted by the department in previous years and that reclassifying it as 'business income' would be prejudicial to revenue due to depreciation allowance. The Tribunal considered various High Court judgments regarding the conditions for invoking Section 263.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a liquor contractor, made substantial purchases and sales. It was an admitted fact that the assessee did not maintain branch-wise cash books, which was considered a serious lapse. The assessee could not bifurcate purchases, expenses, or sales branch-wise, nor state the cash available at each branch. The Tribunal found it difficult to understand why such a large amount of cash was kept at various branches daily, especially when banking channels were available. The Tribunal observed a significant increase in cash balance from INR 96,785/- on 30.04.2016 to INR 6,13,94,422/- on 31.10.2016, which was substantially higher than the INR 2,54,72,388/- in the corresponding period of the preceding year. The Tribunal also noted a peculiar reduction in cash balance in March of both years. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO for verification of the source of cash deposits and payments made for goods purchases vis-à-vis daily sales at each branch. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were vague and bad in law because they did not specify the exact charge (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, or under-reporting vs. misreporting of income). Following various High Court and ITAT decisions, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s. 148 and the subsequent reassessment order were issued without proper jurisdiction. The assessee's primary address and PAN database indicated Gonda as the jurisdiction, not Delhi.

The Tribunal held that distribution revenues received by the assessee constitute business income, not royalty. This decision aligns with previous Tribunal and High Court rulings in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that distribution revenues received by the assessee constitute business income, not royalty. This decision aligns with previous Tribunal and High Court rulings in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition to income based on additional capital introduced, as it was not mentioned in the AIR information. The Tribunal also noted that the AIR information was declared in the books of account.

The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 13, quashing the assessment order for AY 2013-14. The reasoning was that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the approval memo being silent on the issues involved and granting omnibus approval without any discernible thoughtful process. A single approval was granted for seven assessment years without further material showing the superior authority's involvement. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) and distinguished the case of Usha Satish Salvi (supra) relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with Section 153D is not a mere procedural irregularity and vitiates the assessment order. Consequently, since the assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds of appeal for AY 2013-14 were not adjudicated. For the subsequent assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19), the appeals were also allowed on the same ground regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D, as the facts and approval were identical. For AY 2018-19, the penalty under Section 270A was also quashed as the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed.

The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 13, quashing the assessment order for AY 2013-14. The reasoning was that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the approval memo being silent on the issues involved and granting omnibus approval without any discernible thoughtful process. A single approval was granted for seven assessment years without further material showing the superior authority's involvement. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) and distinguished the case of Usha Satish Salvi (supra) relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with Section 153D is not a mere procedural irregularity and vitiates the assessment order. Consequently, since the assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds of appeal for AY 2013-14 were not adjudicated. For the subsequent assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19), the appeals were also allowed on the same ground regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D, as the facts and approval were identical. For AY 2018-19, the penalty under Section 270A was also quashed as the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed.

The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 13, quashing the assessment order for AY 2013-14. The reasoning was that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the approval memo being silent on the issues involved and granting omnibus approval without any discernible thoughtful process. A single approval was granted for seven assessment years without further material showing the superior authority's involvement. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) and distinguished the case of Usha Satish Salvi (supra) relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with Section 153D is not a mere procedural irregularity and vitiates the assessment order. Consequently, since the assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds of appeal for AY 2013-14 were not adjudicated. For the subsequent assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19), the appeals were also allowed on the same ground regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D, as the facts and approval were identical. For AY 2018-19, the penalty under Section 270A was also quashed as the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed.

The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 13, quashing the assessment order for AY 2013-14. The reasoning was that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the approval memo being silent on the issues involved and granting omnibus approval without any discernible thoughtful process. A single approval was granted for seven assessment years without further material showing the superior authority's involvement. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) and distinguished the case of Usha Satish Salvi (supra) relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with Section 153D is not a mere procedural irregularity and vitiates the assessment order. Consequently, since the assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds of appeal for AY 2013-14 were not adjudicated. For the subsequent assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19), the appeals were also allowed on the same ground regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D, as the facts and approval were identical. For AY 2018-19, the penalty under Section 270A was also quashed as the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed.

The Tribunal allowed Ground of Appeal No. 13, quashing the assessment order for AY 2013-14. The reasoning was that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by the approval memo being silent on the issues involved and granting omnibus approval without any discernible thoughtful process. A single approval was granted for seven assessment years without further material showing the superior authority's involvement. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shiv Kumar Nayyar (supra) and distinguished the case of Usha Satish Salvi (supra) relied upon by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that non-compliance with Section 153D is not a mere procedural irregularity and vitiates the assessment order. Consequently, since the assessment order was quashed on this legal ground, other grounds of appeal for AY 2013-14 were not adjudicated. For the subsequent assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19), the appeals were also allowed on the same ground regarding the validity of approval under Section 153D, as the facts and approval were identical. For AY 2018-19, the penalty under Section 270A was also quashed as the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed.