ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2025

BHARAT KUMAR VARMA,NOIDA vs ITO WARD-5(1)(2), NOIDA

ITA 3268/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the appeal was set aside to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

ITA 2307/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on or after 01.04.2021 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment made based on such notices is bad in law and void ab initio.

SHREE KHATUJI INDUSTRIES,DELHI vs JAO, CIVIC CENTRE DELHI

ITA 106/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

BASANT AEROSPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

ITA 2292/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investor by providing bank statements and other relevant documents. The Tribunal also found that the AO had made an ad hoc disallowance of travelling expenses without rejecting the books of account.

BALRAJ PAHUJA,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs ITO WARD 3(1)(2), DELHI

ITA 3259/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation was not fully satisfactory, a complete disallowance was not justified. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, providing relief of Rs. 27,29,280/- to the assessee.

JITENDRA KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

ITA 61/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible thought process. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

RANDHIR KUMAR CHOUDHARY,DELHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36(1), DELHI

ITA 3273/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

SUJATA KOHLI,DELHI vs DCIT CIRCLE 67(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3188/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compliance of filing Form 10-IE is a directory and not a mandatory provision. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's ground and directed the assessing authority to finalize computation.

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,JIND vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE 16, DELHI

ITA 2258/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that for "unabated" assessments initiated under Section 153A, any addition must be based on seized or incriminating material. Since no such material was found, the addition was deleted.

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs M/S BEACON HIGHER EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 5106/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on a prior Tribunal order, and the Department did not provide evidence that this order was challenged or stayed by the High Court. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.

ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE 25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5101/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE 25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5102/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

PADMA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE , NOIDA

ITA 5723/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 864 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE 25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5099/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

ADITYA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs PCIT (CENTRAL) - 1, NEW DELHI

ITA 1503/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed with prior approval under Section 153D cannot be revised under Section 263 by the PCIT unless the approval itself is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Since this condition was not met, the PCIT's order was quashed.

DREAM TEAM HOSPITALITY,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, NEW DELHI

ITA 3146/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Relying on various precedents, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's legal ground.

DREAM TEAM HOSPITALITY,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, NEW DELHI

ITA 3145/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Relying on various precedents, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's legal ground.

NARESH KUMAR SHARMA,HARYANA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3220/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was due to potential communication gaps and non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

PRAMOD SANGWAN,ROHTAK vs DCIT CC-16, NEW DELHI

ITA 6117/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16, since the quantum additions were deleted by the CIT(A), the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not stand. For AY 2017-18, the penalty under Section 270A was invalid because the show cause notice did not clearly specify the offense by striking off irrelevant portions, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.

DEPUTY COMMISSIER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE1.1, GURGAON, GURGAON vs M/S INCH AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

ITA 327/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been remanded to the CIT(A) by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the Tribunal also remanded the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal.

BHARTIYA NADI PARISHAD,UTTAR PRADESH vs CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

ITA 5446/DEL/2024[-]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for reconsideration. The assessee was granted liberty to furnish all necessary details, and the CIT(E) was directed to dispose of the application for registration afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

MAHAVIR PRASAD RADHEY SHYAM DIWAN CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), DELHI

ITA 338/DEL/2025[-]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary documents and decide the application on its merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5100/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE 25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5086/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

JITENDRA KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

ITA 57/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner under Section 153D was mechanical and not in compliance with the law, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without discernible thought process. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

LORD GANESHA MAINTENANCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO WARD- 15(1), DELHI

ITA 3208/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte, and there might have been communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5085/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

USHA MUNJAL,SHAMLI vs ITO WARD-1(5), SHAMLI

ITA 3203/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that a mechanical approval for reopening, as seen in this case, vitiates the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed based on the invalidity of the approval under Section 151 of the Act.

NARESH KUMAR SHARMA,HARYANA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 27, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3217/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

SARWAN HAZARI AHUJA,DELHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, NOIDA

ITA 3241/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening, which was a mechanical acceptance of the Assessing Officer's proposal, vitiated the entire reopening process. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

SONEA DHIR,DELHI vs ACIT CIRCLE-32 (1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3073/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal decided to proceed with Ground No. 4, which was purely legal and did not require factual verification. The assessee's AR argued that the AO exceeded jurisdiction by making additions on issues not forming part of the reasons recorded for reopening. The reasons recorded for reopening were solely based on the unexplained source of investment of INR 5,50,00,000/- in the acquisition of the property. The Tribunal, respectfully following the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT and ATS Infrastructure Ltd. vs ACIT, and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd., held that the AO cannot make additions on issues not forming part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, especially when no addition was made on the issue for which the case was reopened. Therefore, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was quashed. Consequently, all other grounds of appeal became infructuous. The appeal was allowed on Ground No. 4.

ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE 25, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5087/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

PURN PRAKASH TRUST,NEW DELHI vs CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

ITA 5977/DEL/2024[-]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025Allowed

The Tribunal noted that a Co-ordinate Bench had already granted registration u/s 12A of the Act to the assessee, acknowledging its engagement in charitable activities. Relying on this prior decision, the Tribunal held that the registration u/s 80G should also be granted.

TYAGI PIPE CRAFT PVT.LTD.,DELHI vs ITO,WARD-25(3), DELHI

ITA 147/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 was barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the extended due date of 26.06.2022, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5084/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

VISHAL KAPOOR,GURGAON vs ITO WARD-4(1), GURGAON

ITA 3202/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's mistake in ticking the wrong exemption in the Income Tax Return in the interest of justice. The assessing authority was directed to finalize a fresh computation after verifying the facts.

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs SANJAY JAIN, DELHI

ITA 5088/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessments framed under Section 153A are non-est, invalid, void-ab-initio, illegal, and unlawful because no valid search warrant under Section 132 was issued in the assessee's name, which is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating Section 153A proceedings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed, thereby quashing the impugned assessments.

SUKUMAR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs NATIONAL FACELESS APPEALS CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

ITA 5401/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction were not doubted by the Revenue. Since the sale transaction was disputed and not concluded in the year under appeal, the amount received as advance could not be treated as an undisclosed credit.

NARESH KUMAR SHARMA,HARYANA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 27, DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3218/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee three opportunities of hearing. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs AMIT GOEL, DELHI

ITA 2965/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer lacked sufficient independent information to form a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The AO's actions were considered arbitrary and based on generalized information without specific evidence against the assessee.

BRIJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, NEW DELHI

ITA 2011/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 153C was bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not record proper satisfaction for each assessment year and relied on a photocopy of an agreement to sell, which is not a valid document in the absence of the original.

RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED),TILAG MARG, DELHI vs ADDL. CIT CENTRAL RANGE-1, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 294/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that similar to Section 271E, the levy of penalty under Section 271DA requires a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the quantum assessment order. The absence of such satisfaction is fatal to the penalty proceedings.

OMAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY SAOG,OMAN vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(2), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1023/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interconnectivity usage charges received by the assessee are not taxable in India. These services were provided without human intervention, thus not falling under FTS. Furthermore, the income was considered business income covered under Article 7 of the India-Oman DTAA and not taxable in India as the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

RELIANCE RITU KUMAR PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS RITIKA PRIVATE LIMITED),TILAK MARK, DELHI vs ADDL. CIT CENTRAL RANGE-1, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 293/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that similar to Section 271E, the levy of penalty under Section 271DA requires a recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer in the quantum assessment order. The absence of such satisfaction is fatal to the penalty proceedings.

SURESH SONI,DELHI vs ITO WARD-59(6), DELHI

ITA 290/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits, the matter was remanded.

DPL BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1981/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20Remanded

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without a detailed adjudication of the grounds of appeal. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be provided a proper opportunity of being heard.

DPL BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1980/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19Remanded

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without a detailed adjudication of the grounds of appeal. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be provided a proper opportunity of being heard.

AMAN HOLDINGS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs PR.CIT - 1, DELHI

ITA 660/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to want of jurisdiction as there was no valid order under Section 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision proceedings initiated under Section 263 were also quashed.

DPL BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1979/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without a detailed adjudication of the grounds of appeal. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be provided a proper opportunity of being heard.

DPL BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1978/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17Remanded

The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without a detailed adjudication of the grounds of appeal. To ensure substantial justice, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be provided a proper opportunity of being heard.