ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

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 additions cannot be made solely based on entries in the 'Hazir Johri' software without corroborative evidence. Relying on previous judgments with similar facts, the Tribunal found no concrete evidence linking the seized data to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to HUDA are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was therefore in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with liberty to the assessee to raise fresh grounds and file fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard before deciding the appeal ex-parte. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard before deciding the appeal ex-parte. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not commenced business and incurred a loss, Section 115BAB was not applicable. The Tribunal observed that the adjustments proposed by the TPO were not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the payments for IFE content do not constitute royalty under the Act or the India-UK DTAA as no copyrights were transferred and the exhibition rights were limited and non-exclusive. It also held that the 'make available' condition for FTS was not met.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without providing the Assessee adequate opportunity to present documentary evidence to substantiate its charitable activities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the Appellant a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was a duplicate addition, as the profits from the sale of properties were already accounted for in the assessee's profit and loss account and offered for taxation. The AO was not justified in making the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not commenced business and incurred a loss, Section 115BAB was not applicable. The Tribunal observed that the adjustments proposed by the TPO were not warranted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without providing the Assessee adequate opportunity to present documentary evidence to substantiate its charitable activities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the Appellant a proper hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the Section 80ID deduction, citing a previous order on identical facts. The Tribunal allowed the claim for loss of Rs. 5,562/-, finding that it was claimed during assessment proceedings and disallowed due to inadvertent omission in the return.

The Tribunal held that the payments for IFE content do not constitute royalty under the Act or the India-UK DTAA as no copyrights were transferred and the exhibition rights were limited and non-exclusive. It also held that the 'make available' condition for FTS was not met.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not commenced its business and had incurred no income during the assessment year, with all expenditures being capitalized as work-in-progress. Consequently, the provisions of Section 115BAB, which are for availing concessional tax rates on profits, were not applicable. The Tribunal reasoned that for concessional tax rates to apply, there must be taxable income, which was absent in this case. The Tribunal also noted that the First and Second Provisos to Section 115BAB would not be applicable if no income was earned. Furthermore, since the assessee had not commenced its business, the concept of profit shifting from holding and sister concerns was not applicable. Therefore, the proposed ALP adjustments based on Section 115BAB were deleted. The Tribunal also addressed other grounds, noting that the jurisdictional issue regarding reference to TPO and limitation were not pressed. The penalty proceedings under Section 270A were deemed premature. For ITA No. 4916/Del/2024, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning regarding the non-applicability of Section 115BAB to the TP adjustment on material and services purchased, allowing the ground. Other grounds in that appeal were dismissed as no arguments were put forth or they were premature/general. The ratio decidendi is that Section 115BAB and related transfer pricing adjustments for interest on loans are inapplicable when the assessee has not commenced business and has no taxable income.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to HUDA are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was therefore in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order passed on a deceased person is invalid. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh appellate order on the legal heir after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the order of rejection was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the Assessee was not given an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed.

For AY 2014-15, the appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing a lump-sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs for unexplained payments and expenditure and also directed to tax the addition under normal provisions instead of Section 115BBE.

For AY 2014-15, the appeal was dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold specified by CBDT Circular. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing a lump-sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs for unexplained payments and expenditure and also directed to tax the addition under normal provisions instead of Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the impugned assessment order dated 23/05/2024 was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 153(5) of the Act. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to HUDA are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was therefore in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient prior cash withdrawals exceeding Rs. 35 lakhs between May and November 2016, which adequately explained the Rs. 15.35 lakh cash deposit. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance after examining the financial statements and finding that the amount was already offered to tax, thus avoiding a double addition. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion to be justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the Section 80ID deduction, citing a previous order on identical facts. The Tribunal allowed the claim for loss of Rs. 5,562/-, finding that it was claimed during assessment proceedings and disallowed due to inadvertent omission in the return.

The Tribunal noted that the cash deposits during the demonetization period of Rs. 30,95,509/- were not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The issue was covered by a High Court decision regarding the rate of tax applicable to such transactions.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to HUDA are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was therefore in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's Rajeev Bansal judgment, determined that the extended due date for issuing the Section 148 notice was 17-06-2022. Since the notice was actually issued on 30-08-2022, it was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the payments for IFE content do not constitute royalty under the Act or the India-UK DTAA as no copyrights were transferred and the exhibition rights were limited and non-exclusive. It also held that the 'make available' condition for FTS was not met.

The Tribunal held that the payments for IFE content do not constitute royalty under the Act or the India-UK DTAA as no copyrights were transferred and the exhibition rights were limited and non-exclusive. It also held that the 'make available' condition for FTS was not met.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge her burden of proof to justify the nature and source of the cash deposits. The CIT(A) had also upheld the AO's additions. The Tribunal found that the deposits into savings accounts, coupled with the lack of business transaction details and unusual patterns in withdrawals and deposits, supported the addition made under Section 69A.

The Tribunal held that in light of the NCLT's order admitting the CIRP and imposing a moratorium, the present appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to HUDA are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was therefore in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's initial plea that the issue was beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a). However, it remitted the alternative plea concerning the methodology of calculating the due date for PF/ESI contributions back to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the correct due date for remittance, allowing the assessee to present relevant facts.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the cases were restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to HUDA are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was therefore in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not speaking and failed to provide reasons for adopting the net profit rate of 8%. The Tribunal found that the determination of income by the CIT(A) vide order dated 15.02.2024 was illegal as it was made without issuing a notice for enhancement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a facilitator for accommodation entries, and the bank transactions lacked business rationale. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the ledger containing entries of parties other than the assessee cannot be solely attributed to the assessee. Additions made on mere assumption without corroborative evidence like bills or invoices were deleted.

The Tribunal held that payments made towards EDC to HUDA are liable for TDS deduction under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee was therefore in default for not deducting TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expired and no legal heir was brought on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with liberty to revive it if a legal heir is brought on record.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The CIT(E) was directed to afford a fair opportunity of hearing to the applicant and consider further documents if any.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's attempt to revive a protective addition was not sustainable, as Section 147 proceedings cannot be initiated solely for making a protective addition. Relying on precedents, it was determined that protective additions are only applicable when there is doubt about the assessee in whose hands the income should be assessed.

The ITAT observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order against the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Given that the Revenue had no objection to the assessee's request, the ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's attempt to revive a protective addition was not sustainable, as Section 147 proceedings cannot be initiated solely for making a protective addition. Relying on precedents, it was determined that protective additions are only applicable when there is doubt about the assessee in whose hands the income should be assessed.

The Tribunal found a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as additional evidence submitted by the assessee was not forwarded to the AO during the remand report process. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are void ab initio. Since the assessee company had merged and ceased to exist prior to the final assessment order, the order passed in its name is invalid.