ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement of personnel costs and IT related expenses were at arm's length and dismissed the revenue's grounds. It also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding reimbursement of advertisement & publicity expenses.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide the required information, it is important to ensure natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with directions to the assessee to submit all requisite information.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 10% of the balance cash deposits after considering cash sales and withdrawals. However, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, further restricted the disallowance to 5% of the balance cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement of personnel costs and IT related expenses were at arm's length and dismissed the revenue's grounds. It also dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding reimbursement of advertisement & publicity expenses.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee a chance to be heard and file submissions.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide the required information, it is important to ensure natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with directions to the assessee to submit all requisite information.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was inapplicable as the funds originated from the client company and were used for business expenses, not for the personal enrichment of the assessees as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found no evidence of ownership or possession of cash by the assessees.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient opportunity of being heard before the rejection of its application for registration. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of carrying forward expenses to the AO for verification. Regarding advances received, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for advances from M/s Royal Hometown Planners Pvt Ltd and M/s Ellora Infratech Pvt. Ltd., finding them to be explained business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was not delayed, as the period of delay fell within the COVID-19 condonation period granted by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal further held that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued beyond the limitation period and by an officer who did not have jurisdiction at the time, rendering the assessment order invalid. The additional ground regarding the invalid transfer of jurisdiction under section 127 was dismissed for lack of challenge before lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to reasonable circumstances beyond the assessee's control, such as obtaining a second PAN inadvertently. The Tribunal condoned the delay with a cost of Rs. 5000 per appeal. The reassessment order was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh assessment, and the penalty appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of carrying forward expenses to the AO for verification. Regarding advances received, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for advances from M/s Royal Hometown Planners Pvt Ltd and M/s Ellora Infratech Pvt. Ltd., finding them to be explained business receipts.

The Tribunal found the assessee's plea for claiming TDS credit reasonable and remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The AO was directed to allow credit for TDS deducted in the current year pertaining to revenue booked in earlier years if verified.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was due to reasonable circumstances beyond the assessee's control, such as obtaining a second PAN inadvertently. The Tribunal condoned the delay with a cost of Rs. 5000 per appeal. The reassessment order was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh assessment, and the penalty appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal, following its own earlier decisions for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23 in the assessee's own case, held that the assessee, being an LLC, is covered under Article 4 of the India-USA DTAA. On the second issue, the Tribunal, relying on its prior rulings for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23 in the assessee's own case, found that the 'make available' condition as per Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA was not satisfied. The Tribunal reasoned that the technical knowledge was not transferred to the customers to make them self-sufficient, and the customers continued to engage the assessee for offshore work. Therefore, the receipts amounting to Rs. 11,76,94,70,388/- were held not to be taxable as FTS/FIS and were deleted. Consequential grounds regarding interest under Section 234B and computation of interest were allowed for statistical purposes, and the penalty proceedings under Section 270A were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.