ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal observed that lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's socio-economic status and past family savings. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the unexplained investment addition from Rs. 7,82,000/- to Rs. 1,32,000/-, granting a relief of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the assessee, stating this shall not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not admissible. This was in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which specifies a monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for filing appeals by the department before the ITAT. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the issue under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the settlement failed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the approval under Section 151(2) was granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, which is contrary to the law. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest income from such investments, when treated as 'income from other sources', is eligible for deduction of expenses under Section 57 of the Act, a view supported by Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The grounds are restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 25.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This decision was based on the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16, would be dropped.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) who had rightly invoked powers under Section 251(1)(a) to set aside the best judgment assessment and direct a fresh assessment. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal considered the additional evidence presented by the assessee as relevant. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and factual verification, allowing three effective opportunities to the assessee to prove its case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the instant appeal as it was a duplicate of a main case already listed. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition. The source of share capital/premium was established as loans taken by the promoter directors from banks, and the AO failed to point out any discrepancy regarding identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness.

The Tribunal partially upheld the Revenue's appeal, deeming a lump-sum addition of Rs. 8 lakhs to be appropriate for the unexplained cash deposit, acknowledging some failure in the assessee's explanation. It further directed the AO to tax this addition under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE, citing a Madras High Court ruling that Section 115BBE applies from 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee adequate opportunity to present their case and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal observed that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively present its case before the lower authorities. Additionally, the lower appellate order lacked effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from such investments, when treated as 'income from other sources', is eligible for deduction of expenses under Section 57 of the Act, a view supported by Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The grounds are restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal observed that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively present its case before the lower authorities. Additionally, the lower appellate order lacked effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income from such investments, when treated as 'income from other sources', is eligible for deduction of expenses under Section 57 of the Act, a view supported by Supreme Court and High Court decisions. The grounds are restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal observed that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively present its case before the lower authorities. Additionally, the lower appellate order lacked effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that due to communication gaps, the assessee could not effectively present its case before the lower authorities. Additionally, the lower appellate order lacked effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matters were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.