ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

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 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 Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 DR did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not fully prove the claimed expenses, such claims could not be entirely ruled out. The appeal was partly allowed on estimation basis.

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, 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 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 noted that the tax effect was below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT's Circular No. 9/2024, which was made applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal was rejected.

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 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.

The Tribunal, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the co-ordinate bench and the Delhi High Court, held that the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India through its non-exclusive distributor, CIPL. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the orders did not clearly indicate whether notices were properly served. To provide an opportunity for a fair hearing, the case was restored to the file of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's balance sheet and other books of accounts, indicating consumption of raw materials and depreciation, provided sufficient material to conclude the commencement of production. Therefore, the assessee's ground was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the sanction obtained from the PCIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 fell under Section 151(1) and not Section 151(ii) of the Act, as contended by the assessee. The Tribunal also relied on a Bombay High Court judgment quashing a similar notice.

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.