ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash balance from prior bank withdrawals to explain the immediate source of cash deposits. The lower authorities erred in making the addition.

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 addition was made without any basis, as the material on record, specifically the registered sale deed, indicated the sale consideration was Rs. 30,00,000/- and not Rs. 1,23,00,000/-. The Department failed to provide any material to show the transaction at the higher amount.

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 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 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 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 found no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A), who had remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further examination. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued without the proper sanction from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, given that the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of NFAC, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The assessee was directed to appear before NFAC and cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim.

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 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 found that the co-ordinate bench had previously decided a similar issue in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year. The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice and fair play to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to calculate the interest after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

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 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 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 disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory satisfaction before invoking the provisions. Following its own previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the AO had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and that the assessee's objections to the reopening were belated. The Tribunal also found that the sale proceeds were not adequately explained and upheld the addition made under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the AO had valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and that the assessee's objections to the reopening were belated. The Tribunal also found that the sale proceeds were not adequately explained and upheld the addition made under Section 68.

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 noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 05/2024 and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 05/2024 and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was deemed withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was primarily because the tax effect of the appeal was less than the minimum prescribed by the CBDT's latest Circular No. 9/2024, which was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted that communication gaps in virtual hearings are plausible and that the lower appellate order lacked a detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had denied the TDS credit for want of necessary details. The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh factual verification and reconciliation.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not independently examined the receipts for the assessment year in question and relied on an order from a subsequent year. The Tribunal also noted the AO's inability to specify the proportion of receipts from software licenses versus support and maintenance services.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy should be treated as a capital receipt, but restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for quantification of the exact amount. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) had also proceeded ex-parte and that there might have been communication gaps due to the introduction of faceless hearings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details. A specific direction was given regarding ITA No. 2676/Del/2025 concerning the correct assessment year.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details. A specific direction was given regarding ITA No. 2676/Del/2025 concerning the correct assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the mutual fund investments were made by the assessee's wife from her own bank account and were reflected in her DEMAT account, therefore, the addition in the hands of the assessee was incorrect. Similarly, the capital gains from the sale of the property were also primarily the wife's share, and her share of the capital gains should not have been added in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details. A specific direction was given regarding ITA No. 2676/Del/2025 concerning the correct assessment year.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details. A specific direction was given regarding ITA No. 2676/Del/2025 concerning the correct assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation for the delay plausible. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the case was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment.

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 noted that no additions were made based on any seized material. Therefore, the Revenue's request for adjournment was rejected, and the assessee's appeal was accepted on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order had travelled beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. This was based on judicial precedents that an AO cannot expand the assessment scope beyond the issues identified in the initial notice for limited scrutiny.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowing contributions not deposited within the due date for filing the return was settled law. They found merit in the Revenue's contentions that such disallowance can be processed under section 143(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind by the prescribed authority. Citing the decision in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that such mechanical approval vitiates the reopening.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte and that communication gaps might have occurred. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details. A specific direction was given regarding ITA No. 2676/Del/2025 concerning the correct assessment year.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for all assessment years and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details. A specific direction was given regarding ITA No. 2676/Del/2025 concerning the correct assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had analyzed the issue, considering the evidence of a mistake in reporting Form 3CD, and had granted appropriate relief to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s 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 if the assessee has sufficient interest-free own funds, then the presumption is that interest-free advances are made from such funds, and no disallowance of interest expense is warranted. For the disallowance under Section 14A, it was held that it should be computed considering only income-yielding investments.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not backed by any incriminating material and quashed the notice. Furthermore, the additions made under Sections 69 and 69A were deleted due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies with the assessment order in a related case.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was not backed by any incriminating material and quashed the notice. Furthermore, the additions made under Sections 69 and 69A were deleted due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies with the assessment in a related case.

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.