ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control over the equipment remained with the Indian company, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It upheld additions related to bogus sales and cash found at the shop but deleted additions for stock differences and lottery income, finding them explained by disclosures under IDS-2016 and PMGKY.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not provide an independent finding on the addition. The appeal was primarily dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that once the reassessment proceedings are initiated for a specific issue, the AO cannot travel beyond those reasons and make additions on other issues not forming part of the original reasons. Since no addition was made on the issue for which the reassessment was initiated, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that leasing equipment on a bareboat basis, without master and crew, does not constitute a PE in India. The control of the equipment remained with the Indian lessee, distinguishing it from cases involving wet leasing.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not valid as the seized material did not directly incriminate the assessee and the AO of the searched person had prejudged the issue. The assessment order was quashed due to lack of proper jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's claim nor the department's estimation was fully acceptable. The assessee had not sufficiently proven their claim, and the department lacked comparable data. Therefore, the Tribunal directed a revised estimation of net profit at 4% of the turnover.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was not sustainable in law. The delay was condoned, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE, dependent agent PE, or service PE in India. It also ruled that link charges/IPLC charges did not constitute royalty under the India-US DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be granted with an independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, and cannot be a mechanical or ritualistic formality. The approvals in this case were found to be lacking this due diligence.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with virtual hearings, and the lack of proper adjudication in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided to allow a lump sum addition of gross profit of Rs. 2,00,000/- and deleted the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 12,87,862/-, with a clear rider that this decision would not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was silent and ambiguous regarding the specific issues involved for each assessee and assessment year. Consequently, it was presumed to be a non-application of mind, failing to satisfy the mandate of the law.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the instant appeal with liberty to seek restoration if the settlement under the scheme is not approved. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of Mr. Singh's bank statement and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. It was also directed that the assessee be assessed under normal provisions, as Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal found that the disallowance of 25% was exorbitantly high. The Tribunal restricted the impugned disallowance to 5% of the purchase value, with a rider that this decision would not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel no longer pressed the substantive grounds as the lower appellate authority had already restored the matter. The Revenue did not object to the assessee's withdrawal prayer.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be granted with an independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, and cannot be a mechanical or ritualistic formality. The approvals in this case were found to be lacking this due diligence.

The Tribunal held that the entire purchase disallowance could not be upheld in principle, especially when sales figures were not disturbed. A lump sum disallowance of 10% representing the gross profit component was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D must demonstrate application of mind and cannot be mechanical. A consolidated approval for multiple assessees and assessment years was found to defeat the purpose of the law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had disregarded the assessee's submissions and affidavits, noting the absence of property sale documents or ITRs. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's ground that the disallowance of ESI/PF contributions could not be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal relied on earlier judgments which held against the assessee on this issue.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's counsel's request and found that the total tax effect was below Rs. sixty lakhs. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as per the CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal found that the approval for the assessment under Section 153C was granted without proper application of mind, indicating a routine exercise of power. Consequently, the assessments were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be granted with an independent application of mind for each assessment year and each assessee, and cannot be a mechanical or ritualistic formality. The approvals in this case were found to be lacking this due diligence.

The Tribunal held that the impugned statutory provision, Section 56(2)(vii) Explanation (d)(i), was pari materia to Section 50C, which applies to "land and building" only. Given conflicting decisions from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the Tribunal favored the assessee and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 were not sustainable due to non-compliance with amended Section 153C. For AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on merits was upheld, following a previous ITAT order.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, noting that the lower authorities treated 45% of cash deposits as unexplained on a percentage basis without examining each entry against turnover. The Tribunal deleted the impugned addition.

The Tribunal held that while the possibility of cash transactions could not be ruled out, the assessee had not successfully reconciled all relevant facts. It was deemed appropriate to make a lump sum addition of Rs. 3.5 lakhs representing the gross profit component, which would not be treated as a precedent. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to finalize computation under normal provisions instead of Section 115BBE, as the section applies to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of Mr. Singh's bank statement and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. It was also directed that the assessee be assessed under normal provisions, as Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal held that the additions were solely based on statements that were not subjected to cross-examination by the assessee. It was also established that the person involved in the transactions was Sh. Dilip Vitthalbhai Bhagat, not the assessee. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the approval for the assessment under Section 153C was granted without proper application of mind, indicating a routine exercise of power. Consequently, the assessments were vitiated.

The Tribunal noted that the total tax effect in the appeal was Rs. 36,04,420/-, which is below the enhanced limit of Rs. sixty lakhs for filing departmental appeals as per CBDT Circular 09/2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the approval for the assessment under Section 153C was granted without proper application of mind, indicating a routine exercise of power. Consequently, the assessments were vitiated.

The Tribunal noted that the delay was substantial and the reasons provided by the assessee were not considered plausible for condoning the significant delay. The Tribunal found the appeal to be time-barred.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear, but the Ld. AR submitted written submissions. Considering the facts and the case of a co-appellant where similar issues were remanded, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding settlement under the VSVS scheme and permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically without due application of mind, as it was a single approval for multiple assessment years and cases, and was granted on the same day. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The tribunal held that the "situs" of the Assessing Officer, not the CIT(A)/NFAC, determines the territorial jurisdiction of the appeal. The "quantum" appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, while the penalty appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and not taxable as income from other sources, following Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the land's distance from urban areas for capital gains purposes.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AYs 2010-11 to 2013-14 were not sustainable due to non-compliance with amended Section 153C regarding the date of satisfaction. For other assessment years, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on merits was upheld, following previous tribunal orders.