ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should examine the issue of whether religious activities were actually carried out, and not deny registration solely based on the Memorandum of Association if the assessee's activities are charitable. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and the issue was restored to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 are beyond the six-year period permissible for reopening assessments from the date of recording of satisfaction. Therefore, the impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A for unabated assessment years can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search from the assessee's possession. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the additions made based on third-party information.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A for unabated assessment years can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search from the assessee's possession. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the additions made based on third-party information.

The Tribunal held that the addition made was on account of 'liability' and not an 'undisclosed asset' valued at Rs. 50 Lakhs or more, which is a condition for extending the reopening period beyond 6 years under the fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the investment doubted was Rs. 46,80,000/-, which is below the threshold of Rs. 50 Lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and the NFAC dismissed the appeal for lack of substantiating documents. However, the Ld. AR demonstrated that expenditures were duly substantiated by bills. The Tribunal set aside the issues on merits to the AO for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of the identity, creditworthiness, and capacity of the creditors. The Tribunal found no specific link between the assessee and accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A for unabated assessment years can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search from the assessee's possession. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the additions made based on third-party information.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed under Section 147 and the lower appellate authority heard the matter in the absence of the assessee, and the crucial legal ground raised by the assessee was not decided.

The Tribunal held that the Section 148 notice was issued by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, who, in light of CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, did not have the jurisdiction to issue such a notice for a non-corporate return up to Rs. 15 lakhs. Therefore, the notice was considered without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh after verifying necessary facts and evidence. This was done in the interest of justice due to the lack of proper legal representation for the deceased assessee.

The tribunal held that the compliance of filing/uploading Form 10IE is a directory, not a mandatory, provision. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground that procedural lapses should not override substantive rights, especially when no malafide intent is established.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully proven as genuine, a complete disallowance was not justified given the accepted sales. Therefore, a lumpsum disallowance of 10% of the disputed purchases was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to give the Revenue an opportunity to rebut additional evidences furnished by the assessee, and a remand report was not called for. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12 was based on incorrect and substituted reasons, making it void ab initio. For AY 2016-17, the reopening notice was issued without the mandatory approval from the specified authority under Section 151, rendering it invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessees are eligible for the full leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) up to the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000. This decision was based on a recent revision of the exemption limit by the CBDT and a Delhi High Court observation regarding the inadequacy of the previous limit.

The Tribunal noted that the present appeal was inadvertently left out while passing the order for AY 2012-13. Since the issues and facts were similar, the decision in the prior appeal would apply mutatis mutandis. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2011-12 was based on incorrect and substituted reasons, making it void ab initio. For AY 2016-17, the reopening notice was issued without the mandatory approval from the specified authority under Section 151, rendering it invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded incorrect reasons for reopening the assessment, as the assessee had indeed filed its ITR. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were operating leases, aligning with previous decisions. It also ruled that the charging of interest under Section 234B is mandatory and that challenges to penalty proceedings at this stage are premature.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2014-2015 was erroneous, as it should have been passed u/s 153C. The period of six years for assessment u/s 153C was to be reckoned from the date of recording the satisfaction note, not the date of search. The amendment regarding retrospective application of section 153C was also considered.

The tribunal held that while the business activity and allowability of the expenses in principle were not disputed, the assessee failed to prove the claims with necessary evidence. Consequently, a 5% lumpsum disallowance was deemed appropriate for both expenses.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter back to the AO for calling a Remand Report to examine the genuineness of the transactions, which was not done. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that Section 238 of the IBC has an overriding effect over other statutes, including the Income Tax Act, as held by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the Assessee and the Revenue were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter back to the AO for calling a Remand Report to examine the genuineness of the transactions, which was not done. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) did not pass a well-reasoned order. The Tribunal noted that the AO had submitted a remand report stating additional evidences were not acceptable without proper verification, which was essential for a well-reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the penalty orders, being consequential, were also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case and that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to furnish all required details and evidences.

The Tribunal held that the penalty section mandates service of notice, not just issuance. As there was no proof of service and the assessment was ex-parte, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that Section 238 of the IBC has an overriding effect over other statutes, including the Income Tax Act, as held by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the Assessee and the Revenue were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering the assessee's submission that the deposits related to milk sales, the case was restored to the AO for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in a new residential property, as the assessee failed to establish the creditworthiness of the lenders (mother and sister). The Tribunal also affirmed the AO's calculation of business income at 8% of sales.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mechanical and perfunctory exercise, lacking application of mind and not specifying the subject matter of additions. A single approval was granted for multiple assessment years, which vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter back to the AO for calling a Remand Report to examine the genuineness of the transactions, which was not done. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of depreciation on goodwill and non-compete fees requires further examination. It also noted that the AO's rejection of the goodwill valuation was based on a lack of clarity regarding its basis and the difference between IGAAP and US GAAP adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings illegal. Consequently, the penalty orders, being consequential, were also set aside.

The Tribunal found that the TPO had misdirected himself in analyzing the reimbursement of expenses. It was held that the expenses were purely third-party costs incurred for business activities and that the assessee sought reimbursement on a cost-to-cost basis without any value addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard, despite a valid adjournment request. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148A(d) was obtained from an incompetent authority (Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent) as the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard, despite a valid adjournment request. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found merit in deleting the "protective" addition of Rs. 3,33,00,000/- as there was no indication of the Assessing Officer's doubt. Regarding the commission income addition, the Tribunal reduced the estimated rate from 2% to 1.5%, stating it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard, despite a valid adjournment request. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee's valuation report and did not refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) should have remanded the matter back to the AO for calling a Remand Report to examine the genuineness of the transactions, which was not done. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard, despite a valid adjournment request. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.