Big Win for MakeMyTrip! ITAT Slams Income Tax Reopening After 4 Years, says No Failure to Disclose, No Reassessment

The present appeal has been filed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against Make My Trip (India) P. Limited (Respondent) in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi Bench “D”, Delhi, before Shri Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh (Accountant Member). The case is related to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The final decision on the matter was announced on November 10, 2025.

Background of Case

The assessee filed its income tax return (ITR), declaring NIL income after setting off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The assessment in the case of the assessee for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 was completed on January 31, 2011, under Section 144C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tax officer accepted the figures after adjustments.

Later on March 31, 2014, the case of the assessee for AY 2007-08 was reopened, and a notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act. In adherence with the notice, on May 01, 2014, the assessee filed its income tax return (ITR), declaring a total loss of Rs. 35,392,590,4. The reason behind reopening the case was shared with the assessee on September 29, 2014. The reason was that the assessee did not deduct TDS (tax at source) on about Rs. 3.6 crore paid to its foreign associate (MakeMyTrip Inc.) for reimbursement of ticket costs. At the end of the assessment, AO made an addition of Rs. 36,001,993 to the assessee’s income.

Assessee’s Arguments

On the action of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee served the following arguments:

• The reopening was done after four years, which is not allowed unless the company failed to disclose important information earlier.
• It claimed that they had already furnished all the details asked in the initial return and Form 3CEB (for international transactions) for the said assessment year.
• Further claimed, the reopening of the case was based on earlier shared information and not newly furnished information, which is just a change of opinion, not valid under the law.

CIT(A) Decision

Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment order, inter alia, assailing the addition of Rs. 35,898,1227 made to the returned loss of Rs. 32,723,9840. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening of the assessment but on merits decided the issue in favour of the assessee, hence deleting the addition of Rs. 3,60,01,993 to the assessee’s income made by the AO under Section 40(a) of the Act and confirming the total loss of Rs. 35,39,25,904 vide order dated 04.02.2013.

ITAT’s Findings:

The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-6, R. No. 352, CR Building (Respondent), dissatisfied with the action of CIT(A), filed an appeal before the ITAT Delhi.

The tribunal agreed with the arguments served by the assessee and ruled the following:

• The reopening happened after four years, so the tax officer must show that the company failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts, which he did not.
• There was no new or fresh evidence found by the department.
• The earlier assessment had already checked these transactions, including Form 3CEB.
• So, reopening the case was illegal and beyond jurisdiction.

Final Decision:

• In the final decision, the tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment for both the financial years (2007-08 and 2008-09).
• Therefore, the assessee’s Cross Objections were allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed.