ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that for properties that are vacant or under repair, notional rent is chargeable if the taxpayer owns more than one property. However, properties used for business are exempt from notional rent. The addition for ALV was restricted, and the addition for unexplained cash credits was deleted.

The Tribunal held that a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 3.5 lakhs for bogus purchases would be just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent. The penalty appeal was also allowed based on the principle that such issues do not typically result in concealment of income.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply but also considered the society's objectives and the purpose of registration for socio-economic welfare. It was held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal ex-parte without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed of the appeals ex-parte despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and that there was a significant delay in passing the appellate orders. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence produced by the Assessee regarding the nature of expenditure needed to be examined by the Ld. CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services is applicable to Section 143(1) assessments, meaning late deposit of employee contributions to PF/ESI are not deductible. However, it directed the AO to verify the exact due dates from the respective Acts.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal found the reasons for delay to be bonafide and not indicative of any malafide intention.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and that the appeals were disposed of after a considerable delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the inordinate delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is for unexplained credits and not for payments made for purchases, and Section 69C is for unexplained expenditure, not for receipts from sales. The AO also failed to provide the statement of Shri Hitesh Jain or an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to comply but also considered the society's objectives and the purpose of registration for socio-economic welfare. It was held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench of the ITAT having jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal and the no objection from the Departmental Representative. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documents before them that were not presented to the CIT(E). It was also observed that the CIT(E) did not provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the AO did not reject the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) and the assessee provided explanations for the increased raw material costs and fixed sale prices, the trading addition was deleted. The ground related to deferred revenue expenditure was dismissed for not being pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal due to opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and granted liberty to revive the appeal if the scheme application failed. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessees filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that when income is exempt under Section 10(38), both positive income and negative loss do not enter into the regular computation of total income. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to set off or carry forward the long-term capital loss on shares where STT was paid and the gains would have been exempt under Section 10(38).

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved a reasonable opportunity to rectify its shortcomings and make complete compliances. The CIT(E) should have focused on the objectives of the society for registration rather than solely on the genuineness of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved a reasonable opportunity to rectify its shortcomings and make complete compliances. The CIT(E) should have focused on the objectives of the society for registration rather than solely on the genuineness of expenses.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered all the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing and considering the evidences.

The Tribunal held that the AO's actions regarding transfer pricing adjustments for equipment distribution and business support services were unsustainable and set them aside. The Tribunal also set aside the re-characterization of expense reimbursement as services and the disallowance of advertisement expenditure.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a local authority not engaged in business or profession, was not required to maintain books of accounts under Section 44AA and consequently not liable for audit under Section 44AB. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed of the appeals ex-parte despite the assessees filing adjournment applications and that there was a significant delay in passing the orders. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had explained the source of the cash as speculative business income, it could not be treated as undisclosed income under Section 69A. Consequently, Section 115BBE was not applicable.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing exemption under Section 54F for investments made in the name of the assessee's son. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating that the new residential house need not be purchased exclusively in the assessee's name, provided the investment comes from sale proceeds.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the source of Rs. 20,00,000/- deposited from earlier withdrawals was explained, as the CIT(A) had accepted the fact of withdrawals. Regarding Rs. 7,50,000/-, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of relief on agricultural income and past savings, but also considered further explained withdrawals, leading to a partial deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without deciding the issue on merit. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard on merit. The Assessing Officer was directed to give an opportunity of hearing and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documents before them that were not presented to the CIT(E). It was also observed that the CIT(E) did not provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's grievance against the addition of interest income was dismissed as no return was filed. However, the claim for TDS credit was restored to the AO for examination and allowing if not already granted.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte orders despite the assessee filing adjournment applications and noted the significant delay in disposal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the appeals back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the tax authorities.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing that the assessee be given an opportunity to be heard on merit. The assessee was also directed to cooperate with the tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the addition was incorrect as the seized paper was undated and not found in the assessee's possession. Furthermore, there was no corroborative evidence linking the entries to the assessee for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without adequate opportunity for the Assessing Officer to examine it. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had passed away, and the appeal was filed by the legal heir. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing that the legal heir be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.