ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee was able to explain the source of cash deposited during demonetization from earlier withdrawals. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal accepted the submission that the appeal had become infructuous due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if the scheme application failed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had earned long-term capital gains on the sale of securities, as the holding period for all sold securities exceeded 12 months. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel was incorrect.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's cross appeal was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular permitting 500 gms of jewellery for married women did not apply to 24kt gold coins, as they could not be termed 'jewelry'. However, for raw gold, half of it was added with a rider it would not set a precedent.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and a 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 restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not sufficiently clarified to establish that the seized material belonged to or pertained to the assessee. Consequently, the assessments were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of ESI/PF contributions is no longer res integra, with settled law favouring the Revenue. The Tribunal also noted that such disallowances can be part of Section 143(1) processing.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for delayed deposit of ESI/PF contributions is no longer res integra, with settled law favouring the Revenue. The Tribunal also noted that such disallowances can be part of Section 143(1) processing.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee and acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee and the case proceeded with the assistance of the ld. DR. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) should have provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for proper examination and adjudication.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Vijay Kumar, held that shuttering material is entitled to depreciation at 15% and not 100%.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not sufficiently clarified to establish that the seized material belonged to or pertained to the assessee. Consequently, the assessments were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the negative lien on receivables and participating interest cannot be equated with a corporate guarantee and therefore falls outside the definition of an international transaction. Consequently, no benchmarking was required.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not sufficiently clarified to establish that the seized material belonged to or pertained to the assessee. Consequently, the assessments were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the appeal had to be dismissed in light of the CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals by the department to ITAT to Rs. 60 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the assessment proceedings under Section 147 were deemed invalid and the subsequent action initiated by the Assessing Officer was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have referred the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer for comments as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules before deciding the issue. Since this was not done, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that rejection of books solely on the absence of addresses of nomadic shepherds is not sustainable. Considering the assessee's consistent low GP and its role as a pass-through entity, the Tribunal estimated the GP at 0.40% of gross sales.

The Tribunal held that if the DTAA does not specifically provide for the taxability of FTS, such income should be considered as business income under Article 7. Since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and the services were part of its business activities, the income is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal allowed the security charges as the assessee continued to maintain its establishment and operated from a sister concern's premises. However, only 50% of the professional charges were allowed due to the unclear purpose of the legal opinion obtained.

The Tribunal decided most of the grounds in favour of the assessee, citing precedents and High Court/Supreme Court orders. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act is not appealable before the ITAT, as per Section 253(1) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was rejected at the initial stage.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not given sufficient time to the assessee to present its case and had not examined the submitted documents. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for rehearing.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 201(1) must be initiated within a reasonable time limit, as established by the Delhi High Court. The order passed against the assessee was beyond the four-year limitation period, rendering it invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the AO was unjustified because the bank account was a joint account maintained by family members, and proper inquiry regarding the sources of deposits from all members was not conducted. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that notices were sent to a wrong email ID.

The Tribunal held that the losses on forward contracts were normal business losses arising from hedging activities integral to the assessee's core export business. These losses were eligible to be set off against business income and were not speculative in nature.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's cross appeal was also dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds on various issues. Regarding disallowance of R&D Cess paid (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14), it followed ITAT orders for earlier years, noting the High Court's non-admission of department appeals and Supreme Court's confirmation. For Provisional Liability - Expenditure on account of FPI-OE Components (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14), the Tribunal referred to its decision for AY 2011-12, allowing the grounds in favor of the assessee. Similarly, disallowance of CSR expenditure (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) was decided in favor of the assessee, referencing the decision for AY 2011-12. The issue of Sales Tax Exemption as a revenue receipt (AY 2013-14) was allowed, following Delhi High Court orders confirmed by the Supreme Court, and also referencing a High Court order for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Income from trading in mutual funds/shares was treated as business income, not capital gains, and allowed as per directions in AY 2011-12. Disallowance of purchases from M/s Suzuki Motor Corporation on account of non-deduction of tax was allowed in favor of the assessee. Transfer Pricing (TP) - royalty issues were decided in favor of the assessee, referencing AY 2011-12. Credit of TDS certificates was allowed for statistical purposes. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234 was decided in favor of the assessee for statistical purposes. Foreign Tax Credit (AY 2013-14) was directed to be allowed after due verification, as it was denied without reason. Additional grounds raised in AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the additional evidence. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to consider these evidences and decide the issues afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal decided most of the grounds in favour of the assessee, citing precedents and High Court/Supreme Court orders. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they had settled the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue's cross appeal was also dismissed.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in business activities where cash receipts were possible, he failed to reconcile business receipts with cash deposits and provide sufficient documentary evidence. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed appropriate, granting relief of Rs. 46.70 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for issuing the notice under section 153C was invalid because it interchangeably used the expressions "belongs to" and "relates to" without proper distinction, as required by law. This made the subsequent assessments unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for issuing the notice under section 153C was invalid because it interchangeably used the expressions "belongs to" and "relates to" without proper distinction, as required by law. This made the subsequent assessments unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for issuing the notice under section 153C was invalid because it interchangeably used the expressions "belongs to" and "relates to" without proper distinction, as required by law. This made the subsequent assessments unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance based on filing separate Form 10DA reports was a technical error and should not deprive the assessee of the eligible deduction. The reliance on a Supreme Court judgment regarding exemptions was deemed inapplicable to deductions.

The Tribunal held that no mark-up was warranted on recoveries from AEs as no service element was involved, directing deletion of the adjustment. It also found no under-reporting of support income and directed deletion of the related adjustment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had exceeded his jurisdiction in remitting the issue of addition u/s 68 back to the AO for verification, as the assessment was made u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144. The CIT(A) had also not adjudicated the issue of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the entire case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act was flawed and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This fact remained unrebutted by the department.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds on various issues. Regarding disallowance of R&D Cess paid (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14), it followed ITAT orders for earlier years, noting the High Court's non-admission of department appeals and Supreme Court's confirmation. For Provisional Liability - Expenditure on account of FPI-OE Components (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14), the Tribunal referred to its decision for AY 2011-12, allowing the grounds in favor of the assessee. Similarly, disallowance of CSR expenditure (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) was decided in favor of the assessee, referencing the decision for AY 2011-12. The issue of Sales Tax Exemption as a revenue receipt (AY 2013-14) was allowed, following Delhi High Court orders confirmed by the Supreme Court, and also referencing a High Court order for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Income from trading in mutual funds/shares was treated as business income, not capital gains, and allowed as per directions in AY 2011-12. Disallowance of purchases from M/s Suzuki Motor Corporation on account of non-deduction of tax was allowed in favor of the assessee. Transfer Pricing (TP) - royalty issues were decided in favor of the assessee, referencing AY 2011-12. Credit of TDS certificates was allowed for statistical purposes. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234 was decided in favor of the assessee for statistical purposes. Foreign Tax Credit (AY 2013-14) was directed to be allowed after due verification, as it was denied without reason. Additional grounds raised in AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned reopening was not based on any incriminating material, which is a mandatory condition as per the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the lower authorities' action.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had received share investments through banking channels and the Assessing Officer had not produced documentary evidence to disprove the genuineness of these transactions. The Revenue also failed to provide supporting evidence for its grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 16.10 crores was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the disallowance of interest on this loan was also set aside and restored to the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order regarding the addition of Rs. 16.10 crores was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the disallowance of interest on this loan was also set aside and restored to the AO.

The Tribunal observed that while the primary service was benchmarked, the infrastructure fees and reimbursements were separate international transactions requiring independent verification. The Tribunal accepted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and remitted the issue back to the AO/TPO for fresh verification and benchmarking.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's books of account were not rejected, the sources of cash deposits were not fully proved. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was considered just and proper.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard on merit. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing and decide the issue accordingly.

The Tribunal held that while the regular books of account were accepted, the assessee failed to provide supportive evidence for the cash deposits. The issue concerning Section 115BBE was clarified to apply only for transactions after 01.04.2017.