ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal observed that the AO had not considered the case on its merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. To ensure justice, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that repeated remanding of matters is undesirable but found merit in restoring the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to unexplained additions. The Tribunal also cautioned that if the assessee fails to produce good evidence, the additions made by the AO may be confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and subsequent notices were merely uploaded to the e-proceedings portal and not effectively served on the assessee. Citing Delhi High Court and other judicial pronouncements, it was ruled that proper service of the Section 148 notice is a condition precedent for the validity of reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessing Officer of the 'other person' is the deemed date of search for the purposes of Section 153C. Assessments made without adhering to this and other procedural requirements were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principle of natural justice. The mandate of Section 250(2)(a) requires a hearing to be provided. Therefore, the order was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principle of natural justice. The mandate of Section 250(2)(a) requires a hearing to be provided. Therefore, the order was not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the addition on account of interest expense of Rs. 2,16,061/- was not made out against the assessee, as the expenditure was never claimed by the assessee and was not interest paid. The lower authorities' orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessing Officer of the 'other person' is the deemed date of search for the purposes of Section 153C. Assessments made without adhering to this and other procedural requirements were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessing Officer of the 'other person' is the deemed date of search for the purposes of Section 153C. Assessments made without adhering to this and other procedural requirements were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessing Officer of the 'other person' is the deemed date of search for the purposes of Section 153C. Assessments made without adhering to this and other procedural requirements were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessing Officer of the 'other person' is the deemed date of search for the purposes of Section 153C. Assessments made without adhering to this and other procedural requirements were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument was correct based on the DTAA provisions and the Bombay High Court decision in Colorcon Asia Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the beneficial tax rate of 10% for tax withholding.

The Tribunal allowed grounds 5 and 6 of the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions of Rs. 35,13,15,231/- on account of Global Account Management charges and Rs. 2,17,82,837/- on account of lease line charges. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for earlier years, noting that the facts were unchanged. The High Court, in its order dated 13.02.2025, had dismissed the Revenue's appeals on similar issues (Questions B and C concerning GAM charges and lease line charges, respectively), referring to its earlier decisions in CIT vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. and Skycell Communications Ltd. and Anr. vs. DCIT and Ors., and stating that no substantial question of law arose. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide Ground No. 4 concerning freight/logistic support services in the provided excerpt, but the overall appeal was allowed. The Stay application was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised legal grounds concerning the reopening of assessment before the CIT(A), but these were not properly adjudicated. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing these grounds was found to be summary and lacking in reasoned analysis.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and unreasoned order without providing the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under Section 250. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte and unreasoned order without granting the appellant an effective opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing and did not pass a speaking order, thus violating principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements of Section 250. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of RELX Inc. (supra), which is the assessee's group entity. Following this precedent, the Tribunal ruled that the subscription fees received by the assessee are in the nature of business profit/income. As the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, these business profits cannot be charged to tax in India. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 53,07,91,491 made by the AO was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the facts and business arrangement in the present case are identical to the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, where a similar decision was rendered. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's reliance on the DRP's findings regarding the 'make available' clause was not found acceptable. The Tribunal further directed the AO to verify the gross total income and determine the total income correctly while giving effect to the order, and allowed the levy of interest under Section 234B as consequential. The initiation of penalty under Section 270A was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds 2 and 3 concerning the validity of the notice under section 143(2) and its compliance with CBDT instructions, citing the Delhi High Court's decision in Bharat Bansal v National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, which held that administrative circulars do not override statutory provisions and do not create justiciable rights. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that a survey revealed a stock shortage of Rs. 1,55,95,946/-, admitted as sales outside books by a key person, and a discrepancy in cash in hand. The AO rejected the books of accounts under section 145(3), which the Tribunal found valid. While the assessee attempted to explain cash deposits as business receipts, discrepancies and unrecorded sales were found. The Tribunal found that while the revenue's disbelieving the assessee's contention was not fully justified, some failure to explain cash deposits could not be ruled out. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal estimated the gross profit at 8% of the cash deposits and 8% of the unrecorded sales, modifying the CIT(A)'s estimation of 10%. Grounds 4 to 8 were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the entertainment tax subsidy issue was not decided in this order, as the appeals primarily focused on the service tax liability. Regarding the service tax liability, the Tribunal found it an admitted fact that it was a disputed contractual liability. It was also admitted that the liability was settled/crystallized for payment in the year ending March 31, 2012, following High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal noted that 50% of the amount was paid in the relevant previous year. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that once the Delhi High Court finalized the issue, the service tax liability became a liability in presenti/ascertained liability, no longer contingent. Following CIT vs. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Modipon Ltd., the Tribunal held that the disputed contractual liability is admissible as an expense in the year it is settled. Furthermore, applying the principle of consistency, as liabilities for subsequent periods were accepted as ascertained, the arrears up to March 31, 2011, should also be treated as ascertained in the year of crystallization and payment. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the entertainment tax subsidy issue was not decided in this order, as the appeals primarily focused on the service tax liability. Regarding the service tax liability, the Tribunal found it an admitted fact that it was a disputed contractual liability. It was also admitted that the liability was settled/crystallized for payment in the year ending March 31, 2012, following High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal noted that 50% of the amount was paid in the relevant previous year. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that once the Delhi High Court finalized the issue, the service tax liability became a liability in presenti/ascertained liability, no longer contingent. Following CIT vs. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Modipon Ltd., the Tribunal held that the disputed contractual liability is admissible as an expense in the year it is settled. Furthermore, applying the principle of consistency, as liabilities for subsequent periods were accepted as ascertained, the arrears up to March 31, 2011, should also be treated as ascertained in the year of crystallization and payment. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the entertainment tax subsidy issue was not decided in this order, as the appeals primarily focused on the service tax liability. Regarding the service tax liability, the Tribunal found it an admitted fact that it was a disputed contractual liability. It was also admitted that the liability was settled/crystallized for payment in the year ending March 31, 2012, following High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal noted that 50% of the amount was paid in the relevant previous year. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that once the Delhi High Court finalized the issue, the service tax liability became a liability in presenti/ascertained liability, no longer contingent. Following CIT vs. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Modipon Ltd., the Tribunal held that the disputed contractual liability is admissible as an expense in the year it is settled. Furthermore, applying the principle of consistency, as liabilities for subsequent periods were accepted as ascertained, the arrears up to March 31, 2011, should also be treated as ascertained in the year of crystallization and payment. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC(2)(a) as its unit was located in a notified area and it did not manufacture any item listed in the Thirteenth Schedule. The eligibility is based on location and not solely on the specific items manufactured if they are not in the negative list.

The Tribunal held that the entertainment tax subsidy issue was not decided in this order, as the appeals primarily focused on the service tax liability. Regarding the service tax liability, the Tribunal found it an admitted fact that it was a disputed contractual liability. It was also admitted that the liability was settled/crystallized for payment in the year ending March 31, 2012, following High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal noted that 50% of the amount was paid in the relevant previous year. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that once the Delhi High Court finalized the issue, the service tax liability became a liability in presenti/ascertained liability, no longer contingent. Following CIT vs. Swadeshi Cotton & Flour Mills (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Modipon Ltd., the Tribunal held that the disputed contractual liability is admissible as an expense in the year it is settled. Furthermore, applying the principle of consistency, as liabilities for subsequent periods were accepted as ascertained, the arrears up to March 31, 2011, should also be treated as ascertained in the year of crystallization and payment. The assessee's grounds were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A for AY 2011-12 was barred by limitation because the assessment year did not fall within the six assessment years preceding the year in which the search was conducted (AY 2018-19).

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that assessment proceedings cannot be sustained when the assessee has been taken over via an NCLT order for a period prior to that order. The NCLT order and the approved resolution plan are binding and supersede other laws.

The Tribunal held that the interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an integral part of enhanced compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. The PCIT's order, based solely on an audit objection and overlooking Supreme Court precedents, was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal found flaw in the AO's approach of partially accepting the books of account. Since the payments received were below Rs.50,000/-, there was no mandatory requirement to obtain PAN details. The Service Tax Returns filed for FY 2016-17 demonstrated business activity.