ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

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 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 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 held that the section 148 notice was issued prior to the approval of the reopening reason by the Additional Commissioner, which is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the reopening proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the services provided were routine IT management services and did not 'make available' technical knowledge or skills to the AEs. Furthermore, the reimbursement was on a cost-to-cost basis without any profit element, hence not taxable.

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 provisions of Section 1941 of the Income Tax Act were not applicable to the EDC charges paid to HUDA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in DLF Home Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer's invocation of Section 1941 was therefore not sustainable.

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 held that the software licensing fee was for the use of a copyrighted article and constituted business income, not royalty, and was therefore not taxable in India as per Article 7 of the India-USA DTAA, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P. Ltd. The support and maintenance services were found to be ancillary to the software license and did not qualify as FTS/FIS as they did not satisfy the 'make available' test. Consequently, the entire receipts were held to be non-taxable in India.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking order. Due to the absence of substantive documentary evidence and to ensure justice, the Tribunal remitted the issues of merit and jurisdiction back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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 held that the leases were operating leases, not finance leases. It also ruled that the MLI did not render the India-Ireland DTAA inoperative and that the assessees were entitled to the benefits of Article 8 of the DTAA. Finally, the Tribunal found that leased aircraft did not constitute a PE in India.

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 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 loss on sale of shares of PDOECL was a capital loss and not a business loss, based on the assessee's own accounting treatment of these shares as investments. However, the Tribunal further held that the disallowance of carry forward of this capital loss by the CIT(A) was not justified and directed the AO to allow the carry forward.

The Tribunal found merit in both parties' stands, acknowledging the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of reconciliation and the Revenue's estimation of 8% being too high for the unorganized business. A lump sum addition of Rs. 15,00,000 was deemed appropriate on an estimation basis, without setting a precedent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee's legal heir, citing the principle of substantial justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with a directive to first decide the appellant's status as the legal representative.

The Tribunal, relying on the High Court and Supreme Court judgments in similar cases, held that payments made up to February 16, 2017, to authorities like NOIDA did not require TDS deduction. Therefore, the assessee could not be declared an 'assessee in default'.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in initiating the impugned reopening due to a lack of tangible material. The reassessment proceedings were based on information from the assessee's husband's case, where no such investment was found.

The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the entire addition, acknowledging the assessee's status as an agriculturist. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, considering the agricultural income from the lands owned and leased by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had a reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts in the first year of penalty, the penalty under Section 271A was deleted as a one-time measure. It was further held that penalty under Section 271B was not leviable when books of accounts were not maintained in the first place.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to submit reconciliation details. Considering the benefit granted to the assessee for AY 2008-09, the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh.

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 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 since the cash deposits were explained as sale proceeds from cash sales, and these sales were recorded in the books of accounts which were not rejected by the AO or the VAT department, the addition made under Section 68 was not sustainable. The source of the cash deposit was clearly explained.