ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessment years under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. The approvals were sought and granted commonly for all seven assessment years.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. This was done to allow the assessee to submit additional evidence.

The tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO for alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had correctly noted that the AO's findings were based on circumstantial evidence and lacked further inquiry to prove the sales were bogus or inflated.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for Section 80G deduction depends on fulfilling specific criteria and requires submission of necessary documentation. For AY 2020-21, the assessee was eligible for Section 80G deduction as it did not fall under the restricted category of Chapter VI-A deductions under Section 115BAA. The issue of reconciling book income with Form 26AS was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while AMP expenses can constitute an international transaction, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for mere disallowance of expenditure if the assessee has disclosed all particulars. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation in one instance.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for Section 80G deduction depends on fulfilling specific criteria and requires submission of necessary documentation. For AY 2020-21, the assessee was eligible for Section 80G deduction as it did not fall under the restricted category of Chapter VI-A deductions under Section 115BAA. The issue of reconciling book income with Form 26AS was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessment years under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. The approvals were sought and granted commonly for all seven assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessment years under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. The approvals were sought and granted commonly for all seven assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessment years under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. The approvals were sought and granted commonly for all seven assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the sale of shares and assignment of unsecured loans were independent transactions and that selling bad loans at a discount is a common practice. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the combined approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for multiple assessment years under Section 153D of the Act vitiates the entire assessment. The approvals were sought and granted commonly for all seven assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the land was a capital asset. However, it restored the matter to the AO to tax profits under capital gains based on the actual receipt of sale proceeds as per the district court's decision.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable to transactions between a holding company and its subsidiary, as no income accrues to the ultimate beneficiary. The AO wrongly made additions on account of share premium charged from the holding company.

The Tribunal held that while AMP expenses can constitute an international transaction, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for mere disallowance of expenditure if the assessee has disclosed all particulars. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation in one instance.

The Tribunal held that while AMP expenses can constitute an international transaction, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for mere disallowance of expenditure if the assessee has disclosed all particulars. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation in one instance.

The Tribunal held that while AMP expenses can constitute an international transaction, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for mere disallowance of expenditure if the assessee has disclosed all particulars. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation in one instance.

The Tribunal held that CCDs, even if compulsorily convertible, remain a debt instrument as long as they are not converted. The re-characterization of CCDs as equity by the AO/TPO was deemed not justified. However, the determination of ALP was not properly done by the AO.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It held that AMP expenses incurred by the assessee did not benefit the foreign AE's brand, thus no TP adjustment was warranted for AMP expenses. For management fees and interest on receivables, the matter was remitted back to the AO/TPO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the subscriber companies. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition without proper verification.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C was vague and not in accordance with the law. The seized documents were not considered incriminating material without due process. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the lower authorities under section 153C was non-est in the eyes of law. This was based on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the lower authorities under section 153C was non-est in the eyes of law. This was because it did not clearly specify the seized material belonging to the assessee and having a bearing on its income.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of two comparable companies (MAA Business Solutions Pvt Ltd and WNS Global Services Pvt Ltd) from the TPO's list, while dismissing the assessee's plea to include ERP Soft Systems Ltd. Issues related to consequential demands and interest were remitted to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings void. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment notice, finding that the tax liability on book profits exceeded that under normal provisions, thus negating the escapement of income. It also held that the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable due to lack of evidence linking the alleged VAT evasion to unaccounted cash in the assessee's hands.

The tribunal allowed the appeal partly. It directed the AO to accept a corrected weighted average OP/TC for Forbes Facility Services Pvt Ltd. and to remove certain companies from the comparables for contract R&D services. For intra-group services, the issue was restored to the TPO/AO for verification of evidence. For outstanding trade receivables, the AO was directed to factor in the impact of receivables on working capital.

The Tribunal held that the Proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration. The contributions received were considered eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition of Rs. 8,09,95,988/-, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the deletion of both additions.

The Tribunal held that the relevant date for determining if the land was agricultural or not is the date of the notification (06.01.1994), not the date of the sale deed execution. Relying on the Tehsildar's report indicating the land was beyond 5 kms from the Municipal Corporation on the relevant date, the Tribunal found the tax authorities erred.

The Tribunal held that the land sold was not a capital asset as per Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act because the relevant municipality (Dharuhera) was not mentioned in the notification specifying areas for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, the proceeds from the sale were not taxable as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and was obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF/ESIC due to delayed payment, as confirmed by the CIT(A), is no longer an undecided issue, being settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services. It was also held that the adjustment made by the CPC on account of alleged deviation in profit from depreciation claim was outside its purview u/s 143(1).

The Tribunal held that while AMP expenses can constitute an international transaction, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for mere disallowance of expenditure if the assessee has disclosed all particulars. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation in one instance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF/ESIC due to delayed payment, as confirmed by the CIT(A), is no longer an undecided issue, being settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services. It was also held that the adjustment made by the CPC on account of alleged deviation in profit from depreciation claim was outside its purview u/s 143(1).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, condonation of delay, and the appeal itself in violation of the Supreme Court's directions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the AO should consider the net interest (interest paid minus interest earned) and exclude investments that have not yielded exempt income. The disallowance should be restricted to the suo moto amount if it's higher.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the period of limitation for the assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal and the Delhi High Court's decision in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application. The payment of rent to the president, if not exorbitant, and minor deficiencies in the fire safety certificate do not invalidate the genuine charitable activities of the society.

The Tribunal held that while AMP expenses can constitute an international transaction, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for mere disallowance of expenditure if the assessee has disclosed all particulars. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation in one instance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. It held that the CIT(A) was obligated to decide the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it for non-prosecution. The matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 was bad in law due to non-supply of sanction under Section 151 and material relied upon. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order lacked mention of deeming provisions invoked, and for AY 2021-22, the approval for reopening was mechanical.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 was bad in law due to non-supply of sanction under Section 151 and material relied upon. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order lacked mention of deeming provisions invoked, and for AY 2021-22, the approval for reopening was mechanical.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 was bad in law due to non-supply of sanction under Section 151 and material relied upon. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order lacked mention of deeming provisions invoked, and for AY 2021-22, the approval for reopening was mechanical.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 was bad in law due to non-supply of sanction under Section 151 and material relied upon. For AY 2018-19, the assessment order lacked mention of deeming provisions invoked, and for AY 2021-22, the approval for reopening was mechanical.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without proper jurisdiction as there was no order under Section 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction. The Tribunal further noted that the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that while AMP expenses can constitute an international transaction, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for mere disallowance of expenditure if the assessee has disclosed all particulars. The penalty order was also found to be barred by limitation in one instance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient details, and the Assessing Officer had not made adequate efforts to verify the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities reached their conclusion merely on presumptions, without sufficient evidence to support the valuation of stocks at a higher price than actually transacted. The grounds of appeal were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the relevant date for determining if the land was agricultural or not is the date of the notification (06.01.1994), not the date of the sale deed execution. Relying on the Tehsildar's report indicating the land was beyond 5 kms from the Municipal Corporation on the relevant date, the Tribunal found the tax authorities erred.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court quashed the withdrawal of approval, the basis for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IA no longer existed. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.