ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction as the AO relied on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent material. The CIT(A) also erred in rejecting additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's contention that the AO passed an ex-parte order without proper examination of the bank account or adequate enquiries. The assessee also provided details of a bank loan and its withdrawal. The Tribunal set aside the issues to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO doubted only the closing cash in hand without concrete basis and committed an error in estimating interest without rejecting books of accounts. Additions of Rs. 19,98,000/- and Rs. 20,09,000/- were deleted. However, an addition of Rs. 3,75,000/- was sustained due to lack of cogent evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the commission addition to the difference between the market rate and the admitted rate. It also agreed with the deletion of the protective addition under Section 68, as the AO had not established substantive addition elsewhere and the assessee's role as a commission agent was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of MRC receipts has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by various ITAT benches and High Courts. Regarding reimbursements for travel agent commissions, the Tribunal found they were not FTS as the assessee did not render services to Indian hotels but rather recovered payments made to third-party travel agents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to commission and salary, finding sufficient evidence provided by the assessee. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as academic since the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the reopening was beyond four years without satisfying the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147 and was based on a change of opinion, as the issues were already examined during the original assessment.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, rendering the assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had passed ex parte orders without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding the advances, it was found that the CIT(A) had rightly considered them as loans in the absence of the land transaction materializing and supported by evidence. For the exemption claim, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee's activities were educational and consistency with previous years' orders should be maintained.

The Tribunal found that the AO's disallowance of 25% of sales was not based on concrete evidence of bogus transactions, especially since the assessee had provided sales invoices, bills of entry, and confirmed ledger accounts. The Tribunal also noted that Section 37 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable for disallowance of sales. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim regarding cash deposits and opening balance/professional receipts with cogent evidence. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the requisite evidence and providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted invoices, transportation details, and maintained stock registers. The department failed to conclusively prove that Balaji Trading Company was a non-existent entity, especially considering its utilization of Input Tax Credit. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide. While acknowledging non-compliance with notices by the assessee, the Tribunal granted one last opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order vitiated. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unrepresented before the lower authorities and the Tribunal. The grounds for condonation of delay lacked corroborative evidence and were found to be not genuine. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp message, relied upon by the Assessing Officer for the addition, was secondary evidence and inadmissible without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It lacked corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the cross objections of the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54G of the Act. It observed that the assessee sold the industrial unit at Narela on August 28, 2008, and UPSIDC granted permission to transfer an industrial plot in Tronica City, Ghaziabad, in the assessee's name on September 16, 2008. The assessee made payments for this plot before the due date for furnishing the return for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the AO's observation regarding the shift from one urban area to another was factually incorrect, as Tronica City was not notified as an urban area by the Central Government. Therefore, the conditions stipulated in Section 54G were satisfied. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction claimed under Section 54G. Regarding the validity of the approval under Section 151 and the legality of proceedings under Section 148, the Tribunal, having allowed the claim on merits, did not delve into these issues, leaving them open. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment order. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed by the AO was illegal as it was framed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions. Documentary evidence was filed by the assessee, transactions were routed through banking channels, and balances could be traced in the books of accounts, indicating no settlement from undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague and did not specify the year-wise quantum of income based on the seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague and did not specify the year-wise quantum of income based on the seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment order. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague and did not specify the year-wise quantum of income based on the seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order vitiated. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order vitiated. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of assessment was justified based on prima facie material, the entire purchases could not be disallowed as bogus. The addition was reduced to the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases, considering that the sales were disclosed and accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the matter on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without mentioning seized material. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities failed to consider the specific facts and evidence presented by the Assessee for the impugned assessment year, merely relying on past orders. The Tribunal found that the Assessee had demonstrated a substantial change in facts, including the vacation of office premises and no visit by expatriates, which were not controverted by the Revenue. Consequently, it was concluded that the Assessee did not have a PE in India.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions after admitting additional evidence from the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A) had provided a reasoned order for deleting the additions.

The Tribunal held that the payments were for routine repairs and maintenance, not for technical services as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on these payments.