ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the shares were consistently treated as investments in the assessee's books, establishing the intention of investment and thus the loss was capital in nature. However, it allowed the carry forward of the capital loss, distinguishing it from exempt capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued in a printed format without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was defective. This defect was considered fatal to the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement was on a cost-to-cost basis without any profit element and that the services provided did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the Indian AEs, as per the DTAA. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained a partial addition without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and without assigning any reason. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had offered net interest income after accounting for notional interest adjustments. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had demonstrated commercial expediency for the advances and that interest paid was not claimed as an expenditure in the P&L account.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of third-party information without independent inquiry or corroboration, which is not sustainable. The AO failed to provide substantiating documents, and the addition was based on conjectures and surmises.

The Tribunal held that the surcharge rate must be determined as per the Finance Act, 2023, considering the type of assessee, quantum, and category of income. It directed the AO to levy surcharge at 15% on the disputed income.

The Tribunal held that the leases were operating leases, the assessees were eligible for benefits under the India-Ireland DTAA, and the leased aircraft did not constitute a PE in India. It also ruled that the MLI did not automatically render the DTAA inoperative without specific notification.

The Tribunal held that the Section 148 reopening notice was issued before the approval from the Additional Commissioner, rendering the reopening unsustainable in law. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Department had raised a claim during insolvency proceedings which was not accepted and therefore, based on the clean slate theory, the successful Resolution Applicant cannot be burdened with any tax liability. Consequently, ground No.1 of the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Senior DR did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to submit requisite documents to substantiate the source of investment during assessment and appellate proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration after the Assessee produces documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC had applied strict rules of procedure and dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, which was not justified in the case of an individual assessee. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order and that the AO's order was based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order and that the AO's order was based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issues agitated in the appeal were already settled by the Advance Pricing Agreement (APA). Therefore, the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the DR did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the payments for software licensing and support/maintenance services did not qualify as FTS or Royalty under the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal found that the 'make available' clause was not satisfied and that the services were ancillary to the software license.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not fully proved the source of all cash deposits, a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent. Additionally, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to finalize the computation under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE, based on a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the leases were operating leases, the assessees were eligible for benefits under the India-Ireland DTAA, and the leased aircraft did not constitute a PE in India. It also ruled that the MLI did not automatically render the DTAA inoperative without specific notification.

The Tribunal held that the Section 148 reopening notice was issued before the approval from the Additional Commissioner, rendering the reopening unsustainable in law. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that self-assessment tax is an existing liability and can be adjusted against seized cash as per Section 132B of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) erred in disallowing the credit, treating it as advance tax.

The Tribunal held that the solitary issue for consideration was the taxability of amounts received by the assessee towards marketing fee, Radisson Rewards, Reservation Charges, IT/Technology Fee, etc., from Indian Hotels as FTS/FIS. The Tribunal noted this was a legacy issue that had been consistently decided in favor of the assessee in its own case for preceding assessment years. It referred to its earlier decision in ITA No. 9265/Del/2019 (AY 2016-17), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Subsequent decisions for AY 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2021-22 also ruled in favor of the assessee, with the Delhi High Court dismissing Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal observed that the centralized service income significantly exceeded royalty income, reversing the Revenue's contention that the former was ancillary to the latter. Finding no contrary material from the Revenue and no reason to deviate from the consistent view, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,48,70,639/- for parity of reasons. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 1941 of the Act were not applicable to the EDC charges paid to HUDA, citing a Delhi High Court decision. It also noted that the department cannot benefit from citing multiple provisions without finally invoking them.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Assessing Officer's counsel did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 1941 of the Act were not applicable to the EDC charges paid to HUDA, citing a Delhi High Court decision. It also noted that the department cannot benefit from citing multiple provisions without finally invoking them.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a prior assessment year where a coordinate bench had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the previous decision and directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, not financial leases. It further held that the lease rentals received by the assessees were covered by Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA, thus eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, not financial leases. It further held that the lease rentals received by the assessees were covered by Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA, thus eligible for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued in a printed format without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was defective. This defect was considered fatal to the penalty proceedings.

The tribunal held that the jurisdictional ground raised by the assessee was dismissed as the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings. However, the issue concerning TDS credit was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found that the same set of additional evidence was arbitrarily accepted for one relief and rejected for another. Therefore, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the matter afresh.

The Tribunal held that the management fee was closely linked to the loan granted and partook the character of interest, making it exempt from taxation in India under Article 11(3)(b) of the India-Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the GIT charges received by the assessee were for the use of third-party software and did not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill. Therefore, it was not taxable as FIS or royalty.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were duly explained by the sale proceeds and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 79 is attracted only in the year the set-off is claimed, not in the year the loss is incurred. Since the assessee's appeal was for carrying forward losses and not set-off, Section 79 was not applicable for the current assessment year. Furthermore, the shareholding records showed no change relevant to the assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Covid-19 pandemic period and a landmark Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal also noted a lack of proper adjudication in the lower appellate order.

The Tribunal held that the intimation passed u/s 143(1) was sent beyond the prescribed period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed, making it bad in law. The adjustment made in the intimation was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, without confronting the evidentiary aspect of the incriminating documents, has no substantive evidentiary value, especially when the documents themselves are ambiguous. The AO's conclusions were found to be unsubstantiated by cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, without confronting the evidentiary aspect of the incriminating documents, has no substantive evidentiary value, especially when the documents themselves are ambiguous. The AO's conclusions were found to be unsubstantiated by cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued to a non-existent entity is vitiated. The decision of the Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts, especially as it was the first year of such a levy, and deleted the penalty under Section 271A. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271B was also deleted as it was not leviable when no books of accounts were maintained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts, especially as it was the first year of such a levy, and deleted the penalty under Section 271A. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271B was also deleted as it was not leviable when no books of accounts were maintained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through its non-exclusive distributor, CIPL, and thus the income from sale of hardware and software was not taxable in India. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the impugned orders did not clearly indicate whether proper notices were served to the assessee. For the sake of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO's satisfaction for rejecting the assessee's working was not justified, especially as no fresh investments were made during the year and the exempted income was from market gains and dividends. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that the AO had sufficient prima facie material to believe that income had escaped assessment. However, the Tribunal declined to comment on the merits of the additions, as the CIT(A) had remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, not the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, the approval granted by the JCIT was invalid, making the reassessment proceedings void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report in Form No. 10B is a curable defect and that the denial of exemption under Section 11 on this ground is not justified. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the AO to allow the benefit of Section 11.