ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.16,61,00,000/- made by the AO on account of receipts from NHPC and THDC in FY 2011-12 was wrongly made and directed its deletion. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that revenue recognition could be postponed under certain conditions, including receipt uncertainty as per AS-9.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 26-07-2022 was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was quashed.

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 both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

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 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 found that the approval granted by the Additional CIT was mechanical and covered multiple assessment years in a single document. This was held to be invalid by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal.

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 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 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 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 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 found that the Assessing Officer erred in not properly serving notices and that the reassessment was initiated based on incorrect reasons, specifically that the assessee had not filed a return when it was evident that a return was filed. The Tribunal also noted errors in the basis of additions made and the lack of proper investigation into the assessee's claim of identity misuse.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Act is not liable to be sustained. The primary reasoning was the lack of clarity from the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding the specific limb of Section 270A under which the penalty was being levied, whether it was for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income. The Tribunal noted that Section 270A(2) deals with under-reporting, which typically involves omissions or inaccuracies not involving deliberate misrepresentation, while misreporting is dealt with in Section 270A(8). The AO's satisfaction and the subsequent orders did not provide this precise classification. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the addition of Rs. 8,84,936/- on account of late payment of employee's contribution to PF & ESI was adequately disclosed in the tax audit report. The Tribunal considered this issue to be debatable at the time of passing the assessment order, as the matter was fully settled only after the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services Private Limited. The addition of Rs. 73,948/- on account of interest paid to MSME was also noted, on which the assessee had offered tax. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee's case did not fall under any provision of Section 270A due to the AO's failure to provide precise classification and the debatable nature of the additions. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's action of disallowing only a portion of the bogus purchases at 12.5% was one of two possible views and not an erroneous action causing prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was reversed.

The Tribunal found that the addition regarding gratuity was made despite the assessee disallowing it and accounting for it in the ITR. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 43B was based on a mismatch between the ITR and tax audit report, which the assessee contended was due to reporting differences and not a disallowance. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit these issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Section 148A(d) order and the subsequent Section 148 notice were not sustainable. This was due to the lack of proper sanction from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act, as the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without obtaining proper approval from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should have provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reopening by a non-jurisdictional AO was erroneous and untenable. Relying on judicial precedents, it quashed the reopening reasons recorded by the ITO, Rohtak.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 60 lakhs, which is the limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order is non est in the eyes of law because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory Section 143(2) notice, which is a jurisdictional requirement. This failure vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(E), finding that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature and failed to satisfy the genuineness of charitable activities as per section 2(15) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C was invalid without specific incriminating material linking the seized data to the assessee. Additions made based on sales and trade payables were deleted as they were not supported by incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the revised monetary limits set by the CBDT Circular No.09/2024, which is applicable to pending appeals. The Revenue was given liberty to re-institute the appeal if exceptions in the circular applied.

The Tribunal found that the Revenue should be given a further opportunity to inquire into the issues by examining the documents. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to call for a remand report from the AO and pass orders within 8 months.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps during virtual hearings and lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. It deemed it appropriate to set aside the appeal for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had partially discharged the onus of explaining the source of the gold, there was an element of failure to explain some of it. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of a portion of the gold jewellery, valued at the prevalent rate, was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had attempted to prove the source of the opening balance of 358.87 gms of gold jewellery by referring to the accounts as an opening balance as of 01.04.2006. While the assessee prima facie appeared to have discharged its onus, the Tribunal found that the AO correctly noted the lack of evidence corroborating that the jewellery pertained to a period prior to 2006, and no wealth tax return supported this claim. However, the Tribunal also found that the Revenue's attempt to entirely disbelieve the assessee's contention that the jewellery predated 2006 could not be fully justified. Considering this factual matrix, the Tribunal concluded that some element of failure to explain the gold jewellery could not be ruled out. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed a lump-sum addition of only 233.87 gms of gold jewellery for ITA No. 2166/DEL/2025, valued at the prevalent rate of Rs. 4314.78 per gram as on 14.01.2022. This was done with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. For ITA No. 2167/DEL/2025, following the same logic, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of 61.36 gms of gold and directed the AO to bring to tax only 100 gms of gold jewellery, valued at the prevalent rate of Rs. 4314.78 per gram as on 14.01.2022. The decision of the CIT(A) was sustained to the extent of these revised additions. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that if the principal loan amount was not treated as bogus, the interest paid on it in subsequent years could not be disallowed. The Revenue failed to controvert these findings.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT ought to have provided a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the PCIT for reconsideration.

The ITAT, finding that the appeal was dismissed ex parte without adequate opportunity, deemed it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from professional receipts already accounted for and taxed, thus the addition under Section 69A was invalid and led to double taxation. It also held that the donations were eligible for deduction under Section 80G as they were made to eligible entities through prescribed modes.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority ought to have conducted a proper inquiry and applied their mind, giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a possible view and conducted adequate enquiry. The disallowance was correctly made u/s 37 as the nature and source of expense were not doubted, only genuineness. Section 263 action was held invalid as the PCIT sought to impose their view.

The tribunal held that compliance to Section 36(1)(va) should be as per the due date of the corresponding statute, not as per Section 139(1). They cited landmark decisions from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court.

The Tribunal held that not every disallowance or addition automatically attracts a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The explanation regarding the source of investment is a subjective issue requiring detailed appreciation. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court was Allahabad, not Punjab & Haryana. It held that relying on a non-jurisdictional High Court decision without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard was improper. Further, two other grounds of appeal were not dealt with by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that no application for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as defective due to being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts. The Tribunal found that the information regarding losses was disclosed and examined during the original assessment, and reopening based on this information amounted to a change of opinion.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The receipt of DRP directions by the Assessment Unit was considered to be 13.04.2022, making the order passed on 30.06.2022 time-barred.

The Tribunal noted that all three appeals were barred by limitation by approximately 1531 days. No explanation was provided by the assessee for this delay, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to admit the appeals.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the CIT(E) had not given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ITAT restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with directions to re-examine the applications after providing a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who is to furnish all necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the payments received for licensing standard software and connected services are not in the nature of royalty as per the India-Ireland DTAA and Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The case was found to fall under the category of direct purchase of software by an end-user from a foreign supplier.

The Tribunal noted that all three appeals were barred by limitation by approximately 1531 days. No explanation was provided by the assessee for this delay, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to admit the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that all three appeals were barred by limitation by approximately 1531 days. No explanation was provided by the assessee for this delay, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to admit the appeals.