ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the marketing and sales services rendered by the assessee did not involve the 'making available' of technical knowledge or skill, nor did they involve the transfer of technical plans or designs. Therefore, these services did not fall under the 'Fee for Included Services' clause of the India-USA DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest income claimed by the Revenue was not sustainable due to consistency with previous years' decisions. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal noted that no exempt income was earned and that the assessee's share capital and reserves exceeded its investments, therefore deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, which was a blank paper without any reasons, was invalid. The AO failed to follow mandatory provisions and provide a speaking order while disposing of the assessee's objections.

The Tribunal held that the marketing, sales, and consultancy services rendered by the assessee did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) or Fee for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. This was because the services did not involve making available technical knowledge or skill, nor did they involve the transfer of technology.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding commission income by adopting a reduced rate, and sustained the disallowance of certain expenses. The penalty for delayed tax audit report filing was upheld as no reasonable cause was established.

The Tribunal held that the marketing and sales services rendered by the assessee did not involve the 'making available' of technical knowledge or skill, nor did they involve the transfer of technical plans or designs. Therefore, these services did not fall under the 'Fee for Included Services' clause of the India-USA DTAA.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the AO to adopt half the net profit rate determined by the Settlement Commission for the additional net profit on booked commission, considering the group's settlement with the ITSC.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest income claimed by the Revenue was not sustainable due to consistency with previous years' decisions. Regarding the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal noted that no exempt income was earned and that the assessee's share capital and reserves exceeded its investments, therefore deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal condoned the 9-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. It was held that a denovo assessment was required, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the AO to adopt half the net profit rate determined by the Settlement Commission for the additional net profit on booked commission, considering the group's settlement with the ITSC.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the AO to adopt half the net profit rate determined by the Settlement Commission for the additional net profit on booked commission, considering the group's settlement with the ITSC.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the AO to adopt half the net profit rate determined by the Settlement Commission for the additional net profit on booked commission, considering the group's settlement with the ITSC.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate cash sales during the demonetization period, leading to a remand to the AO for verification. For deposits made during the non-demonetization period, the Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate from 8% to 4% after considering the assessee's declared GP rate.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and not deciding all grounds of appeal with detailed reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and not deciding all grounds of appeal with detailed reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and not deciding all grounds of appeal with detailed reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and not deciding all grounds of appeal with detailed reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not obligated to pay advance tax as its income was Nil and it was eligible for exemption. Therefore, the appeal should not have been dismissed on this ground. The Tribunal further found that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee, but the Revenue's representative requested confirmation of the lower authorities' order. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the bonafide reasons and the affidavit filed. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that if the principal amount of the loan was not treated as bogus, the interest paid on such loans in a subsequent year could not be disallowed. The disallowance of interest was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee's books of accounts and making additions under Section 68. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits from regular business sales receipts.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as the AO had already rectified the additions/disallowances based on a rectification application filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 43B should be remanded to the AO for verification of payment dates. For the disallowance under section 36(1)(va), the Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated timely payment and directed the AO to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the assessee did not submit required details. However, to provide a fair chance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) provided opportunities, the assessee did not submit required details. However, to provide a fair chance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) orders and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessee had provided sufficient details during the original assessment, and the PCIT's revision was based on a change of opinion without proper justification.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding commission income by adopting a reduced rate, and sustained the disallowance of certain expenses. The penalty for delayed tax audit report filing was upheld as no reasonable cause was established.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) incorrectly observed that the assessee had not uploaded requisite documents. The assessee contended that they had provided all necessary documents, including bank statements proving payments, and that the payments were made to Soni Chatrath & Co., not PNAM & Co. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance of non-consideration of documents.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not dispute the cash sales reported in DVAT returns or the genuineness of cash withdrawals. The turnover showed normal growth, and the cash deposits were explained by cash sales and opening balance. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate cash sales during the demonetization period, leading to a remand to the AO for verification. For deposits made during the non-demonetization period, the Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate from 8% to 4% after considering the assessee's declared GP rate.

The Tribunal held that while the AO may not have the power to entertain a revised computation without a revised ITR, appellate authorities do have such power. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's contention that the Rs. 3.60 Crores income was unreal and not justified, especially as the AO had no material to show receipt. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3.60 Crores.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years in a consolidated manner was not in consonance with the statutory requirement, which mandates individual approval for each assessment year. Relying on various High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the approval exercise to be mechanical and without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 194A for EDC payments, as they are statutory dues and not 'interest'. The CIT(A) also erred in sustaining the addition by changing the charging provision, which is beyond their powers under Section 251(1)(a). The invocation of Section 40(a)(ia) was also deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions of Section 153D, as the approval was granted mechanically and without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions of Section 153D, as the approval was granted mechanically and without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions of Section 153D, as the approval was granted mechanically and without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that an order passed against a deceased person is not sustainable. It directed that the order should be passed in the name of the legal heir after proper verification and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee did not file submissions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in non-compliance by the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to file submissions and did not appear before the CIT(A) after filing the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in non-compliance. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions of Section 153D, as the approval was granted mechanically and without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without satisfying the statutory pre-conditions of Section 153D, as the approval was granted mechanically and without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without valid jurisdiction, as the AO (ITO Ward-17(4)) had not validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 127(2) and the notice relied upon was issued by a different officer. Additionally, the notice issued by the assessing officer was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications solely on the ground that similar applications had been rejected previously. The CIT(E) was mandated to examine the assessee's application on its merits, including the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities. Rejecting an application without assigning specific reasons and without conducting an independent assessment of the activities' genuineness violates the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. The Tribunal noted that if there were no activities undertaken, the CIT(E) could not assess their genuineness. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications solely on the ground that similar applications had been rejected previously. The CIT(E) was mandated to examine the assessee's application on its merits, including the genuineness of the trust's objects and activities. Rejecting an application without assigning specific reasons and without conducting an independent assessment of the activities' genuineness violates the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. The Tribunal noted that if there were no activities undertaken, the CIT(E) could not assess their genuineness. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to decide afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.