ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

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 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 restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim and decide the issue on merits.

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 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 ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. The tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.

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 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 allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had received the relief sought, rendering the appeals infructuous. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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 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 delay in filing Form 10 is a curable defect, especially when the form was uploaded before the assessment order was framed and was available on the Income Tax Portal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the AO to allow the benefit of Section 11 of the Act.

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 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 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 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 delayed filing of Form 56F was a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny the deduction. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, the appeal was allowed.

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 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 issue was squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and by various High Court judgments, including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal found no reason to deny the charitable nature of the assessee's activities under Section 2(15) and upheld the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Section 11.

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 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 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 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 AO had considered cash withdrawals from only two bank accounts, ignoring withdrawals from two others, and had not considered documented cash receipts from family and friends. The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking 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 issuing a notice under Section 147/148 to a dissolved firm, when the AO was duly informed of its dissolution and the succession by a new entity, vitiated the assessment proceedings. The assessment was initiated and concluded in the name of a non-existing entity.

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 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 acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the larger interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.

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 filing Form 10-IC is a procedural requirement and not mandatory, and its non-compliance within the due date should not invalidate the assessee's substantive right to the benefit of Section 115BAA. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessment years under appeal were not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act. The deletion of additions by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was sustained, and the Revenue's grounds were rejected.

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 assessment years under appeal were not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act. The deletion of additions by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was sustained, and the Revenue's grounds were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years under appeal were not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act. The deletion of additions by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was sustained, and the Revenue's grounds were rejected.

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 found that the assessee's mistake in applying under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) instead of (iii) was inadvertent and could be rectified in the interest of justice. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals as the assessee had received the relief sought, rendering the appeals infructuous. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the six-year period for assessment under Section 153C should be computed from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO, not the date of the original search. Therefore, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible period.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2013-14 was not covered within the six assessment years as per Section 153C of the Act. The date of recording satisfaction for the search proceedings was considered the relevant date for computation, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the assessment order were restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) would not survive. The penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee for relinquishing his 'right to sue' was a capital receipt and not taxable as capital gains. The CIT(A)'s order treating it as taxable income was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 153C for AY 2010-11, as it fell outside the ten-year block period computed from the date of handing over of seized material. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld.

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 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 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 penalty was levied based on an assessment order that was subsequently set aside. Since the original assessment order was annulled, the penalty based upon it could not be sustained. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that proceedings were ex-parte and considered the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking order and confirmed the AO's addition without proper consideration of the assessee's detailed explanations and documentary evidence. The issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.