ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

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 noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(Appeals) conducted proper inquiry or verification before making additions or deletions. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that assessments for AY 2010-11 to 2013-14 were not sustainable due to non-compliance with amended Section 153C regarding the date of satisfaction. For subsequent years, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions based on previous ITAT rulings.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 noted that no proper inquiry or verification was conducted by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). To ensure natural justice for both parties, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after conducting full verification and inquiries.

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 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 neither the AO nor the CIT(Appeals) conducted proper inquiry or verification before making additions or deletions. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

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 additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are permissible only when incriminating material is found during the search proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made additions based on the assumption that the assessee was in possession of undisclosed income, without substantiating this with concrete evidence found during the search. The Assessees' contention that no incriminating material was found was accepted. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 153A requires the AO to assess income in respect of which a notice has been issued, and such assessment must be based on material found during the search. Since no such material was presented, the additions were deemed unjustified. The ratio decidendi is that Section 153A assessments must be predicated on incriminating evidence unearthed during a search, and mere suspicion or presumption is insufficient. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision direction was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer had taken one of two possible views. This action did not constitute an erroneous action or one causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging that the entire purchases were bogus accommodation entries, decided to restrict the disallowance to 18% of the bogus purchases. This was based on the facts, the GST rate on cement, and the costs associated with obtaining accommodation entries, aiming for a fair estimation of the profit element.

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 "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 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 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 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 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 held that since no addition was made by the lower authorities based on specific seized material, the Revenue's plea for adjournment and arguments on merits were rejected. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

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 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 was granted mechanically and in haste, without proper application of mind, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid approval was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments for assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were not sustainable due to non-compliance with the statutory amendment regarding the period for assessment under Section 153C, counting from the satisfaction date. For other years, the additions were deleted on merits as per the CIT(A)'s findings.

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 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 due to communication gaps and procedural lapses, it was appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the order and restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing.

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 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 held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the approval of the authority specified under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent assessment proceedings were quashed.

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 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 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 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 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 noted that no proper inquiry or verification was conducted by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals). To ensure natural justice for both parties, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after conducting full verification and inquiries.

The Tribunal held that there was no principal-to-agent relationship between the assessee and the payment gateways, but rather a principal-to-principal relationship. Therefore, the payments did not fall under Section 194H, and TDS was not deductible.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed without giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing. For the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that there was no principal-to-agent relationship between the assessee and the payment gateways, but rather a principal-to-principal relationship. Therefore, the payments did not fall under Section 194H, and TDS was not deductible.

The Tribunal held that the Marketing Support Expenses were allowable as business expenses, Director's Remuneration was not excessive or unreasonable, and R&D Expenses incurred before the certificate date were also allowable based on High Court precedents. Consequently, the disallowances made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the existence of stock and cash sales are not doubted by the Assessing Officer, and the cash deposits are explained as proceeds from these sales, then no addition under Section 68 is warranted. The Tribunal followed various High Court and ITAT decisions supporting this view.