ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the taxability of payments received for the Altea system has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches, and the Revenue's appeal on this point was not admitted by the High Court, thus attaining finality. Therefore, payments for the Altea System are not taxable as royalty under the Act or the DTAA, allowing Ground 4. Regarding the Permanent Establishment (PE) issue, the Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court has affirmed the existence of a PE in India. However, it also acknowledged that the Supreme Court, in its orders dated 19.04.2023 and 20.07.2023, upheld the High Court's decision that 15% of the revenue earned is taxable in India, and since the assessee pays 33% of booking fees to distributors, no further income is attributable to tax in India. Following the coordinate bench's decision for AY 2022-23 and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, this ground is also allowed in favour of the assessee. Grounds 1 and 2 were deemed general, and Ground 6 consequential, requiring no separate adjudication. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC, in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay and misrepresentation, should have provided the assessee an opportunity to justify the service date or file a condonation application.

The Tribunal held that income from the sale of RECs for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 is a capital receipt and not taxable as business income, following various judicial precedents. The legislative amendment inserting Section 115BBG was prospective.

The Tribunal held that income from the sale of RECs for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 is a capital receipt and not taxable as business income, following various judicial precedents. The legislative amendment inserting Section 115BBG was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C were invalid as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The assessment years were considered unabated, and thus, additions could only be made based on specific seized material.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had prima facie discharged its onus, it failed to prove the physical movement of goods. The Revenue's discrediting of the seller was also not fully justified. A lump-sum addition of 5% of the purchase amount was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal found that communication gaps could not be ruled out and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps leading to the ex-parte proceedings. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps leading to the ex-parte proceedings. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the latter order refusing to condone the delay was a nullity as it was a duplicate and passed subsequent to an order that was already in effect. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153C is unsustainable because the Assessing Officer failed to record the required satisfaction as mandated by law. The assessment order was quashed on this ground.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not clarify whether the gifted land was a capital asset. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that purchases were made from non-genuine entities and restricted the profit embedded in such bogus purchases to 2.5% of the bogus purchase amount. This was done in the larger interest of justice and not to be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee sufficient opportunities to represent its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were duplicate files. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed in their entirety, subject to any just exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's legal grounds 1, 2, and 3 were not pressed. Regarding grounds 4 and 5, concerning the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal observed that the DRP had directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the inadvertent filing of Form 15CA with amounts in INR instead of EUR and to verify Form 26AS, giving necessary credit. The DRP had stated that if the claim was correct, the addition should be deleted. However, the AO made the addition in the final assessment order. Upon reviewing the Forms 15CA and bank certificates, the Tribunal found that two amounts (INR 2,81,431 and INR 37,33,855) were received as interest on an ECB loan, with TDS deducted under Section 194LC by Edelmann India. The duplicate filing of Form 15CA was due to an error in reporting TDS in Rupees instead of Euros. Furthermore, INR 3,95,90,000/- was a repayment of an ECB loan principal, which is a capital transaction and not income. Consequently, the addition of INR 4,76,20,574/- was reduced by these amounts. The remaining interest income was subject to TDS under Section 194LC, exempting the assessee from filing a return under Section 115A(5). Therefore, the entire addition of INR 4,76,20,574/- was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation for the goodwill and its source, making Section 69 inapplicable. It also affirmed that goodwill is a depreciable asset as per Supreme Court rulings prior to the Finance Act, 2021.

The Tribunal held that as per the first proviso to Section 153C, the commencement date for computing the six assessment years is the date of receipt of seized materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Therefore, AY 2014-15 was outside the permissible period.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were duplicate files. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed in their entirety, subject to any just exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects fall under the 'protection of environment' limb of Section 2(15), not the 'general public utility' limb. It also ruled that TDS deduction and filing ITR-6 before registration are not grounds to reject the application.

The ITAT found the approach of the First Appellate Authority to be narrow and pedantic regarding the short delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the First Appellate Authority to adjudicate all grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was vitiated and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of DTAA rates for Dividend Distribution Tax, allowing the refund of excess tax paid. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for depreciation on goodwill, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that physical stock variations showing less stock than book stock cannot be considered undisclosed investment and deleted the addition. For excess finished goods, the Tribunal allowed the investment from undisclosed sales, considering it a direct source within the business.

The Tribunal, following a precedent where a similar issue was remitted, decided to send the matter back to the AO for fresh verification of the transactions. The Tribunal also held that the AO had no jurisdiction to adjust book profit under Section 115JB for disallowed losses from the scrip.

The Tribunal, following a precedent where a similar issue was remitted, decided to send the matter back to the AO for fresh verification of the transactions. The Tribunal also held that the AO had no jurisdiction to adjust book profit under Section 115JB for disallowed losses from the scrip.

The Tribunal held that physical stock variations showing less stock than book stock cannot be considered undisclosed investment and deleted the addition. For excess finished goods, the Tribunal allowed the investment from undisclosed sales, considering it a direct source within the business.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as there was no corroborative evidence, no excess jewelry was found during the search, and the assessee was not found to be the owner of any such alleged jewelry or cash.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as there was no corroborative evidence, no excess jewelry was found during the search, and the assessee was not found to be the owner of any such alleged jewelry or cash.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as there was no corroborative evidence, no excess jewelry was found during the search, and the assessee was not found to be the owner of any such alleged jewelry or cash.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired the business along with goodwill and its valuation was correct. It also allowed depreciation on goodwill, following its own earlier decisions and Supreme Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the assessable value of imported goods for customs duty and the invoice value cannot be a ground for addition. It further held that Section 69C can only be invoked if the revenue proves that the expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee, which was not established in this case.

The Tribunal held that while the AO cannot entertain a fresh claim without a revised return, appellate authorities have the power to admit such claims. The Tribunal found that the loan was utilized for business purposes and upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition for bonus/interest income was not justified as it was not received or accrued to the assessee. For unexplained money, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for a portion of the cash, supported by evidence, and directed deletion of that amount.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. For the business income, the assessee's declared income exceeded the minimum prescribed rate under Section 44AD, making detailed expenditure proof unnecessary. For the jewellery, the assessee's husband had already declared sufficient jewellery before the Settlement Commission.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that certain companies selected as comparables were functionally dissimilar or had extraordinary events, rendering them non-comparable. The Tribunal also directed exclusion of a company due to unavailability of reliable segmental details.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not effectively challenged. However, for additions related to unexplained money under Section 69A, the Revenue failed to establish the assessee's ownership of the property or the source of funds, relying on retracted statements. Therefore, these additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not effectively challenged. However, for additions related to unexplained money under Section 69A, the Revenue failed to establish the assessee's ownership of the property or the source of funds, relying on retracted statements. Therefore, these additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not effectively challenged. However, for additions related to unexplained money under Section 69A, the Revenue failed to establish the assessee's ownership of the property or the source of funds, relying on retracted statements. Therefore, these additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions made based on uncorroborated retracted statements and without establishing ownership of assets are not sustainable. Provisions of Section 69A cannot be applied merely on the basis of possession without proving ownership.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153A was not effectively challenged. However, for additions related to unexplained money under Section 69A, the Revenue failed to establish the assessee's ownership of the property or the source of funds, relying on retracted statements. Therefore, these additions were deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of education cess as it was not claimed in the computation of book profits. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of interest charged under Section 234A to the AO for fresh adjudication, finding that the return was filed within the extended due date.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the credits were duly reflected in the assessee's books of account, which were audited, and therefore, could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A.

The Tribunal held that the addition for bonus/interest income was not justified as it was not received or accrued to the assessee. For unexplained money, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for a portion of the cash, supported by evidence, and directed deletion of that amount.

The Tribunal held that physical stock variations showing less stock than book stock cannot be considered undisclosed investment and deleted the addition. For excess finished goods, the Tribunal allowed the investment from undisclosed sales, considering it a direct source within the business.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based solely on a revenue audit objection without any fresh material, constituting a mere change of opinion. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequent reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that physical stock variations showing less stock than book stock cannot be considered undisclosed investment and deleted the addition. For excess finished goods, the Tribunal allowed the investment from undisclosed sales, considering it a direct source within the business.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the penalty appeal to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the penalty appeal along with or after deciding the pending quantum appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated that the assessee's business involved regular cash collections and deposits. The Tribunal noted that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was less than the average monthly cash deposits in the preceding period and that the source of cash from sales was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the physical stock variation showing excess book stock over physical stock cannot be treated as undisclosed investment and deleted the addition. For excess physical stock of finished goods, it was held that the undisclosed sales provided a direct source for investment, thus allowing the addition.