ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s rectification order was bad in law as the Supreme Court judgment relied upon was delivered after the original CIT(A) order and cannot be applied retrospectively. The powers under section 154 are not for reviewing earlier orders based on subsequent judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a cost, and noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a proper hearing. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on its merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that agricultural land situated beyond 8 km from the municipal limit, as certified by revenue authorities, is not a capital asset. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the purchase of the flat fell in the previous Assessment Year and thus no addition could be made for the current Assessment Year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly restricted the commission income to Rs. 83,818/- by applying the same rate of Rs. 2,000/- per crore. This rate was applied consistently in subsequent assessment years for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities Ltd. was cited as precedent, and the amendment by the Finance Act 2021 was noted as prospective.

The Tribunal held that for notices issued under Section 148 after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner/Director General, as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. Since approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which is not the competent authority in such cases, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' as per Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2009. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(37) was not accepted.

The Tribunal condoned the 13-day delay in filing the Revenue's appeal, finding reasonable cause due to the AO being engaged in time-barring matters. Regarding the maintainability of the appeal, the Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT (WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024) had settled the issue that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017. Since the assessment year in question is 2017-18, and the AO invoked section 115BBE, the Tribunal concluded that the consequential tax effect computation was affected. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was found to be hit by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024 on account of low tax effect, as per normal provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, granting liberty to the Revenue to move an application if the case falls under any exception.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal confirmed the principle that the purchases were not entirely genuine but held that since corresponding sales were accepted, the entire purchase amount could not be disallowed. Following precedents, the Tribunal quantified the disallowance by restricting it to a profit element of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer was directed to modify the addition accordingly.

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 order of the lower authorities was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without appreciating the bonafide nature of activities and decided the issue ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer taking one of two possible views in disallowing 25% of the assessee's purchases cannot be termed an erroneous action causing prejudice to the Revenue's interest, especially when the assessee had provided documentary evidence. Therefore, the PCIT's revision direction under Section 263 was reversed.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 56F is procedural and directory, not mandatory. Since the form was filed before the completion of assessment proceedings and satisfied statutory requirements, the procedural delay should not override the substantive compliance.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have resorted to Section 143(1)(a) for a debatable issue, especially when the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services was pending. The disallowance made under Section 143(1)(a) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that certain details regarding the disputed cash deposit remained unexplained due to the absence of proper supporting documents. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority's discussion was not provided in full. However, the core issue revolves around the correct TDS provision applicable to the payment made for infrastructure facilities and entry-level personnel.

The Tribunal held that communication gaps at various levels could not be ruled out, and there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, relying on a jurisdictional high court decision in Puri Constructions (P) Ltd., noted that the issue of TDS deduction on EDC payments has been settled against the assessee, confirming that such payments attract TDS. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that the assessee was in default in Section 201(1) proceedings for failing to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal, relying on a jurisdictional high court decision in Puri Constructions (P) Ltd., noted that the issue of TDS deduction on EDC payments has been settled against the assessee, confirming that such payments attract TDS. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that the assessee was in default in Section 201(1) proceedings for failing to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal was ex-parte as no one appeared. However, considering the principle of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C to be initiated, the seized material must directly belong to, pertain to, or relate to the assessee. Merely mentioning the assessee's name without supporting incriminating material is insufficient.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C to be initiated, the seized material must directly belong to, pertain to, or relate to the assessee. Merely mentioning the assessee's name without supporting incriminating material is insufficient.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transaction with Shri Sanjay Singhal concerning the remake rights of the movie 'Tum Bin 2' was a sham transaction. The reasoning was that the story was written by Shri Anubhav Sinha and could not have been sold by the appellant to Shri Sanjay Singhal. The Tribunal found the deal between the two individuals to be a sham transaction designed to inflate the film's price. Furthermore, the appellant failed to furnish any supporting evidence for their claim. Consequently, the expenses claimed on account of this impugned transaction were not allowable as a deduction. The Assessing Officer was deemed correct in making an addition. However, the Tribunal adjusted the addition, allowing a relief of Rs. 25,00,000, restricting the addition on account of the sham transaction to Rs. 2,39,60,000 (Rs. 2,64,60,000 - Rs. 25,00,000). The ratio decidendi is that transactions designed to artificially inflate prices or conceal income, lacking genuine commercial substance and supporting evidence, will be treated as sham and expenses disallowed. The operative direction is to restrict the addition as specified.

The tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds as withdrawn. The disallowance of expatriate salaries was deleted, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The Section 80G deduction issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the appeal under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and wished to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal addressed specific grounds related to the production of films 'Tum Bin 2' and 'Hate Story 4'. For AY 2017-18, concerning the film 'Tum Bin 2', the addition of Rs. 5,24,00,000/- was confirmed by the CIT(A) as inflated expenditure, representing the excess payment to Magus Consultancy Dubai over what was paid to Anubhav Sinha. The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition was already confirmed on merits in the hands of SCIPL, and a protective assessment of the same amount at the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the appeal of the department was dismissed on this ground. For AY 2018-19, concerning the film 'Hate Story 4', a protective addition of Rs. 6,21,14,771/- was made on account of disallowance of production expenses. The CIT(A) had upheld the addition in the hands of SCIPL. However, the Tribunal observed that the substantive addition was confirmed on merits in the hands of SCIPL, and a protective assessment of the same amount at the hands of the assessee would lead to double taxation. Consequently, the appeal of the department was dismissed. In summary, for Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd., assessee's appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2019-20 were partly allowed, and Revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2019-20 were dismissed. Departmental appeals in the case of Bhushan Dua for AY 2013-14 to 2019-20 were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of comparables for transfer pricing adjustments needs to be re-adjudicated by the TPO. It also directed that the assessee would get consequential relief for the 80JJAA deduction to the extent of assessed total income.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that a protective assessment of the same amount in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation, as the substantive addition was already confirmed in the hands of SCIPL. Therefore, the departmental appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal observed that communication gaps might have occurred and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and restored them to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal examined the genuineness of legal and professional expenses paid to Rohit Tandon. It considered the need for services, actual rendition, and utilization of services by the appellant, along with the payments made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its jurisdiction by making enhancements under Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in cases where the AO had not made any enquiry or discussed the issue during the assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 and 2018-19. The Tribunal noted that the AO never made any enquiry on the enhancement issue during these assessment years. Therefore, the correct recourse for the Revenue should have been Section 147/148 or Section 263 of the Act, not an enhancement under Section 251. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Union Tyres [1999] 240 ITR 556 (Delhi) and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry [1962] 44 ITR 891 (SC) to support its reasoning that the first appellate authority cannot consider new scopes of income or enhance assessments by discovering new sources not considered by the AO. The ratio decidendi is that the power of enhancement under Section 251(1)(a) is limited to issues that were subject to appeal and had been dealt with, even if under-assessed, by the AO in the assessment order. It cannot be used to introduce entirely new grounds or income sources not examined by the AO. The operative direction is not explicitly stated for all issues, but the finding on the enhancement issue implies a deletion or modification of the CIT(A)'s order on that specific point. The judgment does not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal observed that communication gaps might have occurred and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and restored them to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that communication gaps might have occurred and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and restored them to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal addressed specific grounds related to the production of films 'Tum Bin 2' and 'Hate Story 4'. For AY 2017-18, concerning the film 'Tum Bin 2', the addition of Rs. 5,24,00,000/- was confirmed by the CIT(A) as inflated expenditure, representing the excess payment to Magus Consultancy Dubai over what was paid to Anubhav Sinha. The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition was already confirmed on merits in the hands of SCIPL, and a protective assessment of the same amount at the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. Therefore, the appeal of the department was dismissed on this ground. For AY 2018-19, concerning the film 'Hate Story 4', a protective addition of Rs. 6,21,14,771/- was made on account of disallowance of production expenses. The CIT(A) had upheld the addition in the hands of SCIPL. However, the Tribunal observed that the substantive addition was confirmed on merits in the hands of SCIPL, and a protective assessment of the same amount at the hands of the assessee would lead to double taxation. Consequently, the appeal of the department was dismissed. In summary, for Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd., assessee's appeals for AY 2015-16 to 2019-20 were partly allowed, and Revenue's appeals for AY 2013-14 to 2019-20 were dismissed. Departmental appeals in the case of Bhushan Dua for AY 2013-14 to 2019-20 were also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The tribunal held that the date of recording of satisfaction note is to be construed as the date of search for determining the limitation period for initiating proceedings under Section 153C/147 of the Act, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that protective assessments of amounts already confirmed as substantive additions in the hands of SCIPL would amount to double taxation. Therefore, such protective additions were to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable in light of the revised monetary limits for filing appeals, as stipulated by a CBDT Circular. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds as withdrawn. The disallowance of expatriate salaries was deleted, following a co-ordinate bench decision. The Section 80G deduction issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and not a product of proper application of mind, as evidenced by case law and the specific facts presented. This vitiated the entire assessment proceedings.