ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was not in accordance with the law, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years and lacked specific application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal appreciated the assessee's contention that similarly placed entities should be treated similarly and that the addition should be limited to commission income. The matter was remitted back to the AO to consider the percentage of commission income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A. It further ruled that the disallowance of bogus expenses was not justified as the AO's observations were not sustainable and the assessee provided necessary documentation. The claim for dormant assets as revenue loss and the increase in work-in-progress were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was not in accordance with the law, as it was a common approval for multiple assessment years and lacked specific application of mind to each year's assessment. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed returns under Section 44AD, they were not required to maintain books of account. Therefore, the AO could not invoke Section 69A based on the absence of recorded transactions in books, especially when the sales figures declared exceeded the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was not an unexplained credit as it was received as per a sale agreement and payment schedule spread across multiple years. The claim for deduction u/s 54F was remanded for verification of compliance with all conditions.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the purchase consideration as unexplained/bogus income without independent verification. Relying on various case laws, it was held that the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in adding back the transfer pricing adjustment to the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT decisions, it was found that such adjustments are not permissible under Section 115JB(2) unless specifically provided.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly consider the amended provisions of Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act. The issue of share capital was not fully adjudicated, and the denial of set-off for losses was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.

The Tribunal affirmed the additions related to gross profit variation (Rs. 8,08,245/-) and unsecured loan (Rs. 10,00,000/-) due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence. However, it deleted the additions concerning administrative/operational expenses (rebate on sales and rent of L-13, totaling Rs. 1,64,219/- and Rs. 1,66,340/- respectively) and the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 45,882/-, recognizing them as legitimate business expenses.

The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not file its submissions before that authority, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in non-compliance. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims and decide the issue on merits, in accordance with facts and law. The assessee was also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific finding was given on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal. It held that the CIT's revision order was bad in law as it was based on an issue not properly raised in the show-cause notice and that the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiry and taken a plausible view regarding the trade discount.

The ITAT held that the reopening of assessments was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to independently verify the information received and relied on a borrowed satisfaction. The tribunal also noted that a key statement used for reopening was retracted by the deponent before the reasons for reopening were recorded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation that the authorized person was unwell, which prevented timely filing. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay in preferring the appeal before the CIT(A). The order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the appellate authority. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could properly explain the source of cash deposits nor could the department brush aside all evidence. In the interest of justice, the addition was confirmed at Rs. 47,000 instead of Rs. 11,47,000, providing relief of Rs. 11,00,000.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It ruled that the AO's opinion regarding the cash payment was erroneous as there was no actual evidence of a Rs. 25 crore cash payment from D.K. Gupta to the assessee. Therefore, no violation of Section 269SS occurred, rendering the penalty under Section 271D not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee claimed business loss, not Short Term Capital Loss, and the tax effect was below the monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable as it did not fall under the exceptions for bogus LTCG/STCL through penny stocks.

The Tribunal held that appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. For the non-resident assessee, the Tribunal found that Section 144C provides a separate assessment mechanism for eligible assessees, requiring a draft assessment order. The direct passing of a final assessment order by the AO was a jurisdictional infirmity.

The Tribunal held that appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. For the non-resident assessee, the Tribunal found that Section 144C provides a separate assessment mechanism for eligible assessees, requiring a draft assessment order. The direct passing of a final assessment order by the AO was a jurisdictional infirmity.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the AO to reduce additions related to purchases and sales from a specific Hong Kong supplier. It also held that Section 115BBE was not applicable for the assessment year under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was done in haste without application of mind, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this approval was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. For the non-resident assessee, the Tribunal found that Section 144C provides a separate assessment mechanism for eligible assessees, requiring a draft assessment order. The direct passing of a final assessment order by the AO was a jurisdictional infirmity.

The Tribunal held that appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. For the non-resident assessee, the Tribunal found that Section 144C provides a separate assessment mechanism for eligible assessees, requiring a draft assessment order. The direct passing of a final assessment order by the AO was a jurisdictional infirmity.

The Tribunal held that appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. For the non-resident assessee, the Tribunal found that Section 144C provides a separate assessment mechanism for eligible assessees, requiring a draft assessment order. The direct passing of a final assessment order by the AO was a jurisdictional infirmity.

The Tribunal held that appeals with low tax effect were dismissed. For the non-resident assessee, the Tribunal found that Section 144C provides a separate assessment mechanism for eligible assessees, requiring a draft assessment order. The direct passing of a final assessment order by the AO was a jurisdictional infirmity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT's revision order was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries and taken a plausible view regarding the discount allowed to the buyer, which was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence under Rule 46A. It further ruled that the disallowance of bogus expenses was not justified as the AO's observations were not sustainable and the assessee provided necessary documentation. The claim for dormant assets as revenue loss and the increase in work-in-progress were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was invalid because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required by the amended Section 151(ii) for cases where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in business with potential cash sales. A Gross Profit component of 10% on the impugned cash deposits was deemed appropriate but not to be treated as a precedent. For assessment under Section 115BBE, it was clarified that it applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance in submitting submissions, despite opportunities. Considering the facts and interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction notice, which used both "belongs to" and "relates to" in relation to the seized material, was not in accordance with the law. This dual phrasing rendered the satisfaction invalid for initiating proceedings under Section 153C.

The Tribunal, citing the precedent in Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, held that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee proving their case.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction recorded for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not valid. The satisfaction notice used both the expressions "belongs to" and "relates to", which the Tribunal held to be improper according to the law.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction recorded for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not in accordance with the law. The use of both 'belongs to' and 'relates to' in the satisfaction was deemed improper.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that there were two different reasons recorded for reopening, and the approval under Section 151 was granted after the notice under Section 148 was issued. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment were held to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's first appeal was hit by the CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 60 lakhs. The second appeal was also dismissed in light of a Madras High Court decision stating Section 115BBE applies from 01.04.2017 onwards.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's first appeal was hit by the CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, which revised the monetary limit for departmental appeals to Rs. 60 lakhs. The second appeal was also dismissed in light of a Madras High Court decision stating Section 115BBE applies from 01.04.2017 onwards.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's sole substantive issue was that the disallowance amount was already included in their computation and had gone un-rebutted by the Revenue. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the ground to the Assessing Officer to ensure no double disallowance.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from the shipping business were not royalty. It noted that previous appeals on similar issues for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the primary issue concerns the validity of the reopening due to a lack of proper approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151. The approval on record was examined.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 147 was based on sufficient material and dismissed the ground related to the reopening. However, regarding the addition under Section 68, the Tribunal found it unclear from the orders if proper verification of the assessee's claim of receivables was done. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the submission of Form 10IE is a directory provision, not mandatory. The assessee had filed Form 10IE after filing the return but before the lower authorities' decision, and this was considered sufficient.

The assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to argue before the assessing authority. The Revenue did not contest this request.

The Tribunal held that since the cash receipts were duly credited to the accounts of the corresponding customers and this was not rebutted by the department, they could not be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal followed a previous decision in Shrijeet Finance (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was proceeded ex-parte by the CIT(A) and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to faceless hearings. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not dispute that the assessee had not claimed the cost of improvement in the relevant previous year. The property was acquired in preceding assessment years, making the addition under Section 68 unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that for a prior assessment year (2015-16), a similar appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity. Following this precedent and with no objection from the DR, the Tribunal restored all the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that for a prior assessment year (2015-16), a similar appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity. Following this precedent and with no objection from the DR, the Tribunal restored all the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that for a prior assessment year (2015-16), a similar appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity. Following this precedent and with no objection from the DR, the Tribunal restored all the appeals.