ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal noted that in a similar succeeding year, the AO accepted the assessee's business activities and only considered commission income. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for a de novo assessment to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's primary contention was that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nestlé SA & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1420 of 2023) had reversed the decision of the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the CIT(A). The Supreme Court had categorically held that the benefit of the Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) clause is not available in the absence of a specific notification, thereby settling that the applicable rate of tax on dividend payments under Article 10 of the India-Netherlands DTAA is 10%. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not controverted these facts and had, in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment, suo motu deposited the differential tax and filed revised TDS returns. Therefore, in view of the settled legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the demand raised by CPC-TDS. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee's application for waiver of interest was not impacted by this order.

The Tribunal held that the property was acquired in FY 2009-10, as payments were made during that financial year, and the allotment letter was issued by DLF on 09.12.2009 after all payments were accounted for. Therefore, indexation on the cost of acquisition, including brokerage, must be allowed from FY 2009-10, irrespective of the sale deed registration date in the subsequent financial year. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow indexation on the entire cost of acquisition from FY 2009-10. Regarding brokerage, the Tribunal directed its allowance as deduction, citing evidence of payment to the broker through banking channels. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking cryptic order and a violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present her case, and the appeal was dismissed on grounds of limitation without proper consideration of the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the material on record, deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the Ld. AO for fresh assessment on merits. This decision was made after noting that the assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the Ld. CIT(A) without providing an adequate opportunity. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the Ld. AO. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific issue of limitation and the date of service of the assessment order were not definitively decided on merits but were rendered moot by the remand for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for AYs 2004-05 to 2017-18. The High Court had held that profits from providing technical services to other airlines are covered by Articles 8(1) and 8(3) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands. The Tribunal noted that the India-Netherlands DTAA does not have the same restrictive definition of 'operation of aircraft' as found in the India-UK DTAA, which was a key distinction in the British Airways case. The Tribunal found that the Hon'ble Court observed that activities carried out pursuant to an International Airlines Technical Pool agreement, such as providing spare parts or maintenance services to other airlines, will be ancillary to the operation of aircraft in international traffic. Therefore, the technical handling income is held to be exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. The addition made by the AO is deleted, and the grounds of appeal are allowed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for AYs 2004-05 to 2017-18. The High Court had held that profits from providing technical services to other airlines are covered by Articles 8(1) and 8(3) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands. The Tribunal noted that the India-Netherlands DTAA does not have the same restrictive definition of 'operation of aircraft' as found in the India-UK DTAA, which was a key distinction in the British Airways case. The Tribunal found that the Hon'ble Court observed that activities carried out pursuant to an International Airlines Technical Pool agreement, such as providing spare parts or maintenance services to other airlines, will be ancillary to the operation of aircraft in international traffic. Therefore, the technical handling income is held to be exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. The addition made by the AO is deleted, and the grounds of appeal are allowed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned and speaking order on merits, considering all facts, submissions, and the AO's remand report. The receipts from the software license were held not to be 'royalty' under Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT, as the payments were for the use of a copyrighted article, not the copyright itself. The Tribunal also noted that subsequent judgments by the Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that non-exclusive, non-transferable licenses to use software do not amount to royalty under the DTAA. Regarding maintenance and support services, and training, the CIT(A) found them to be ancillary and inextricably linked to the software license, and not taxable as Fees for Included Services (FIS) under Article 12 of the DTAA, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in SFDC Ireland Ltd. v. CIT. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the income was not taxable as business income under Article 7 of the DTAA in the absence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, as no finding was given by the AO regarding PE, nor was it pressed in remand proceedings. Therefore, the Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) failed to decide the nature and taxability of income was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for AYs 2004-05 to 2017-18. The High Court had held that profits from providing technical services to other airlines are covered by Articles 8(1) and 8(3) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands. The Tribunal noted that the India-Netherlands DTAA does not have the same restrictive definition of 'operation of aircraft' as found in the India-UK DTAA, which was a key distinction in the British Airways case. The Tribunal found that the Hon'ble Court observed that activities carried out pursuant to an International Airlines Technical Pool agreement, such as providing spare parts or maintenance services to other airlines, will be ancillary to the operation of aircraft in international traffic. Therefore, the technical handling income is held to be exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. The addition made by the AO is deleted, and the grounds of appeal are allowed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for AYs 2004-05 to 2017-18. The High Court had held that profits from providing technical services to other airlines are covered by Articles 8(1) and 8(3) of the DTAA between India and Netherlands. The Tribunal noted that the India-Netherlands DTAA does not have the same restrictive definition of 'operation of aircraft' as found in the India-UK DTAA, which was a key distinction in the British Airways case. The Tribunal found that the Hon'ble Court observed that activities carried out pursuant to an International Airlines Technical Pool agreement, such as providing spare parts or maintenance services to other airlines, will be ancillary to the operation of aircraft in international traffic. Therefore, the technical handling income is held to be exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA. The addition made by the AO is deleted, and the grounds of appeal are allowed. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure incurred by the assessee was directly related to earning the interest income and was allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions on similar matters.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a Nidhi company and deposits are accepted from shareholders. The AO made an addition of 20% of total deposits under Section 68 due to non-compliance in furnishing details of depositors. The assessee argued that these deposits are reflected in audited books, and similar additions were made in regular assessments. The assessee also contended that statements of a few depositors were not confronted and the 20% addition was arbitrary. The Tribunal observed that the AO's action of making an ad hoc addition of 20% of deposits under Section 68, without proper substantiation or confronting material, was not justified. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if deposits are reflected in regularly maintained and audited books, and the nature of the business is accepting deposits from shareholders, then a blanket addition of 20% is unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention that similar additions were already made in regular assessments. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.46,07,66,454/- under Section 68 was not sustainable. Regarding remittances, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted relief, and the Revenue was seeking to reverse it. The Tribunal's decision on this and other grounds is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the reasoning for the Section 68 addition suggests a need for proper substantiation and adherence to procedural fairness. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the full extent of the decision on all grounds is not elaborated in this segment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were unsustainable. The assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders, and the AO had relied on investigation wing information without establishing a nexus.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's submissions and rejected the applications without proper natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if employer contributions to PF/ESI were deposited before the due date for filing the return and allow deduction if so. The Tribunal also directed the AO to refund the excess DDT paid, as per the finding in the Intertek India case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition based on surmises and disregarding documentary evidence. The addition was based on a negative cash balance working not confronted to the assessee and relied on an inapposite precedent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the counsel's medical condition. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the interest income from ECBs is taxable in India as it is not effectively connected to the assessee's Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The claim for deduction under Section 44C was also not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's submissions and rejected the applications without proper natural justice. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a Nidhi company and deposits are accepted from shareholders. The AO made an addition of 20% of total deposits under Section 68 due to non-compliance in furnishing details of depositors. The assessee argued that these deposits are reflected in audited books, and similar additions were made in regular assessments. The assessee also contended that statements of a few depositors were not confronted and the 20% addition was arbitrary. The Tribunal observed that the AO's action of making an ad hoc addition of 20% of deposits under Section 68, without proper substantiation or confronting material, was not justified. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if deposits are reflected in regularly maintained and audited books, and the nature of the business is accepting deposits from shareholders, then a blanket addition of 20% is unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention that similar additions were already made in regular assessments. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.46,07,66,454/- under Section 68 was not sustainable. Regarding remittances, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted relief, and the Revenue was seeking to reverse it. The Tribunal's decision on this and other grounds is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the reasoning for the Section 68 addition suggests a need for proper substantiation and adherence to procedural fairness. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the full extent of the decision on all grounds is not elaborated in this segment.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had made an attempt to explain the source of the cash deposit, the explanation was not entirely satisfactory, especially concerning the linkage to the disclosed income during the search. However, the Revenue's denial of the assessee's contention was also not fully justified.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued without obtaining the proper sanction from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal found that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) did not specify which limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) was invoked and did not strike off the inapplicable portion. Following the ratio of the judgment in CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and the assessee's appeal was allowed, the penalty levied also cannot survive. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 40,000/- under Section 272A(1)(d) deserves to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action in the second round of reassessment was a colourable exercise of power, whimsical, and erroneous, as the principles of natural justice were violated. The AO failed to provide the necessary documents and confront the assessee with the statements relied upon, despite the clear directions from the Tribunal in the first round. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of LTCG exemption and the addition of commission. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness of the transactions, especially given the suspicious nature of the share price appreciation and the company's involvement in fraudulent IPOs.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 26-07-2022 was time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed requested notices to be sent to a specific email, and subsequent notices were sent to a different address. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed filed the Form 10CCB on two dates, which was accompanied with both the original and revised returns. Therefore, the disallowance of the deduction was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT had revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 60 Lacs. Therefore, the present appeal with a tax effect lower than the revised limit was deemed not maintainable.

The tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions, confirming that no right to receive alleged designated returns accrued to the assessee and that the revenue subsidy issue was also correctly decided in the assessee's favor. The tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions in the assessee's case for previous assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on settling the corporate guarantee was not allowable as a business expenditure. The primary reason for giving the guarantee was to support a subsidiary, and the settlement was to resolve a dispute arising from that support, not for the direct business operations of the assessee.

The tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions, confirming that no right to receive alleged designated returns accrued to the assessee and that the revenue subsidy issue was also correctly decided in the assessee's favor. The tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions in the assessee's case for previous assessment years.

The tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions, confirming that no right to receive alleged designated returns accrued to the assessee and that the revenue subsidy issue was also correctly decided in the assessee's favor. The tribunal relied on its own earlier decisions in the assessee's case for previous assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the approval for initiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act showed inconsistencies and indicated a non-application of mind by the authorities. The wrong explanation to Section 147 was applied, vitiating the entire proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the counsel's medical condition. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that "Application" of funds for charitable purposes includes acquiring another society engaged in charitable activities, provided certain conditions are met. The issue of the advance made for acquiring the society requires fresh adjudication by the AO. The disallowance on account of Rs. 1,20,000/- spent on insurance and accessories for a new school van was directed to be allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the royalty payment on the 'logo' as a deductible expenditure, citing its inclusion in the demerger scheme and treating it as a business expense. Additions for undervaluation of closing stock and the treatment of capital subsidy were also deleted, following consistent prior adjudication and judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal held that the approval for initiating reassessment proceedings beyond three years was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. This statutory violation resulted in jurisdictional error.

The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Department was defective as the grounds of appeal were not filed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the Department to file it afresh.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C could not be applied as purchases were made through bank account and appeared in the assessee's books. It also held that Section 68 could not be invoked for alleged bogus sales as the amount was already offered as turnover, leading to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that royalty paid for the use of a brand logo, which was not part of the original demerger scheme, was not allowable. However, it allowed depreciation on assets where a capital subsidy was received, citing Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions that such subsidies are incentives and not directly for meeting the cost of assets.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a Nidhi company and deposits are accepted from shareholders. The AO made an addition of 20% of total deposits under Section 68 due to non-compliance in furnishing details of depositors. The assessee argued that these deposits are reflected in audited books, and similar additions were made in regular assessments. The assessee also contended that statements of a few depositors were not confronted and the 20% addition was arbitrary. The Tribunal observed that the AO's action of making an ad hoc addition of 20% of deposits under Section 68, without proper substantiation or confronting material, was not justified. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if deposits are reflected in regularly maintained and audited books, and the nature of the business is accepting deposits from shareholders, then a blanket addition of 20% is unsustainable. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention that similar additions were already made in regular assessments. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.46,07,66,454/- under Section 68 was not sustainable. Regarding remittances, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted relief, and the Revenue was seeking to reverse it. The Tribunal's decision on this and other grounds is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt, but the reasoning for the Section 68 addition suggests a need for proper substantiation and adherence to procedural fairness. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the full extent of the decision on all grounds is not elaborated in this segment.

The Tribunal held that the expression "one residential house" in Section 54 encompasses multiple units within the same building, such as the ground and first floor. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to deduction on both floors and the cost of construction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the AO failed to establish that the assessee received consideration exceeding the disclosed amount. The Tribunal emphasized that capital gains are computed on the full value of consideration received, not the market value, and the AO did not provide evidence of excess receipt.

The Tribunal held that royalty paid for the use of a brand logo, which was not part of the original demerger scheme, was not allowable. However, it allowed depreciation on assets where a capital subsidy was received, citing Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions that such subsidies are incentives and not directly for meeting the cost of assets.

The Tribunal held that royalty paid for the use of a brand logo, which was not part of the original demerger scheme, was not allowable. However, it allowed depreciation on assets where a capital subsidy was received, citing Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions that such subsidies are incentives and not directly for meeting the cost of assets.

The Tribunal held that royalty paid for the use of a brand logo, which was not part of the original demerger scheme, was not allowable. However, it allowed depreciation on assets where a capital subsidy was received, citing Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court decisions that such subsidies are incentives and not directly for meeting the cost of assets.