ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B, dismissing the revenue's grounds related to it. Several comparables in the transfer pricing analysis were excluded. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of disallowances made under Section 14A for want of proper satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and allowed the assessee's grounds related to it.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. Since both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment, with a direction for the AO to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B, dismissing grounds related to it. Several comparables were excluded from the transfer pricing analysis. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to lack of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee's appeals on this matter were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided all grounds of appeal on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on vague reasons and without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The notice under Section 148 was also found to be issued without adhering to the amended regime and in violation of principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment was initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval for reopening under Section 151 of the Act ought to have been obtained from the Ld PCCIT. Obtaining approval from the Ld PCIT was fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147, rendering the reassessment proceedings vitiated.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation due to the lack of a condonation petition, which was appropriate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision as the assessee could not explain the delay even before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeals as barred by limitation, as the assessee could not explain the delay and did not file a condonation petition before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) should not have decided the issue on merits when the appeal was dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the appellant to produce documents and decide the application on its merit, especially since the Assessee claimed to be conducting charitable activities. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of claims or expenses does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) unless there is a finding of concealed income or inaccurate particulars. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation without condoning the delay, yet decided the issues on merits. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeals for want of condonation petition, as the assessee could not explain the delay even before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals as barred by limitation due to the absence of a condonation petition and failure to explain the delay. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) should not have decided the issue on merits when the appeal was dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order under Section 143(3) had allowed the exemption. The issue of denial of exemption under Section 11 for the same assessment year was pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, to decide the appeal consistently with the outcome of the related appeal, the present appeal was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the Assessee to produce documentary evidence to substantiate its claim for charitable activities before rejecting the application. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that if the primary basis for reopening an assessment is deleted by the appellate authority, the reopening itself is invalid. Consequently, any subsequent additions made on that basis cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal decided that the issues were covered by its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The appeal of the revenue regarding the deletion of additions under Section 68 was dismissed, and the addition on account of commission was to be calculated at a net rate of 0.47% on turnover.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of claims or expenses, without a finding of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts were relied upon.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act, dismissing the revenue's grounds related to it. The Tribunal also directed the exclusion of several companies from the set of comparables in the transfer pricing analysis. For issues concerning Section 14A disallowances, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance due to lack of valid satisfaction. The appeal regarding transfer pricing adjustments on corporate support services was remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were arbitrary and lacked sufficient material or justification. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted these additions by considering the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and void ab initio. The reasons recorded for reopening were vague and lacked independent application of mind by the AO. Additionally, the notice for reassessment was issued under the old law despite the new regime being in effect, and mandatory sanctions were mechanical.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153A was not properly served on the assessee who was in judicial custody, rendering the proceedings bad in law. Additionally, the approval under Section 153D was found to be granted without proper application of mind, making it invalid.

The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments, allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 10B and dismissed the revenue's grounds related to it. The appeals concerning transfer pricing comparables were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. The disallowances under Section 14A were directed to be deleted due to lack of proper satisfaction by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153A was not properly served on the assessee who was in judicial custody, making the entire proceedings bad in law. Additionally, the approval under Section 153D was found to be not in accordance with law due to a lack of proper application of mind and mechanical granting.

The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148, issued on or after 01.04.2021, were issued under the old regime, which was invalid. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed these notices.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A of the Act was not properly served on the assessee who was in judicial custody, rendering the entire proceedings bad in law. Additionally, the approval granted under Section 153D was found to be mechanical and not in accordance with the law, as it lacked proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the notices under section 148, though dated March 31, 2021, were issued/sent on April 1, 2021. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, it was determined that such notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, fall under the new regime and therefore, the notices issued under the old regime were quashed.

The tribunal noted that no one appeared for the assessee despite repeated notices and that there was a significant delay of 156 days in filing the appeals. The grounds for the delay were not well explained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated the identity, capacity, and creditworthiness of the lender. The unsecured loan was repaid through banking channels, and the assessee had provided necessary documentary evidence, discharging the onus under Section 69A of the Act. The addition was not legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the approval obtained for issuing the notice under Section 148A(d) was not in accordance with the new regime of the Act, as it appeared to have been accorded as per the old regime. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 41 days, finding that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying re-application for 80G approval simply because it was rejected previously, as there is no statutory bar against such re-application.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153A was not properly served upon the assessee who was in judicial custody. Additionally, the approval granted under Section 153D was found to be mechanically done without proper application of mind.

The Tribunal held that mere disallowance of claims or expenses does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The additions made by the AO were based on a difference of opinion and not on specific findings of concealed income or inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal noted that notices were repeatedly issued to the Assessee, but no one appeared, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Additionally, there was a significant delay in filing the appeals, and the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits or legal grounds. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that notices were repeatedly issued to the assessee, who did not appear, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Furthermore, there was a significant delay of 156 days in filing the appeals, and the grounds for the delay were not well-explained.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear for the hearing despite repeated notices, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a significant delay of 156 days in filing the appeals, and the explanation provided for the delay was not satisfactory.