ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the incriminating material having a bearing on the determination of total income for specific assessment years was a mandatory prerequisite for invoking Section 153C. The Satisfaction Notes failed to record adequate reasons demonstrating this nexus, rendering the action unsustainable.

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 the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note was defective as it failed to clearly establish whether the seized material had any bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. The Tribunal quashed the impugned satisfaction and consequential assessments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note was insufficient as it failed to demonstrate how the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. The Court quashed the impugned satisfaction and the consequential assessments, finding that the AO had not properly recorded the necessary satisfaction as required by law.

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 PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The AO's assessment, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam HUF, where interest under Section 28 was held to be part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37), was valid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Mahender Pal Narang was distinguishable and its SLP dismissal did not make it a binding precedent.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not be treated as an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer filed a favorable remand report supporting the assessee's case. The impugned addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding the bearing of the seized material on the determination of the assessee's total income. It was further noted that the Assessing Officer had failed to provide reasons for this satisfaction, a requirement that has been consistently upheld by various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Consequently, the impugned satisfaction and consequential assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C to be valid, the AO must be satisfied that the seized material has a bearing on the determination of total income. The Satisfaction Notes in these cases failed to provide adequate reasons or demonstrate this nexus, rendering the invocation of Section 153C unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned satisfaction and consequential assessments were quashed.

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 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to calculate the actual due date for payment of employee contributions towards PF/ESI as per the respective Acts. The Assessing Officer was also directed to verify the documents produced by the assessee.

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.

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 cash deposits appeared to be from regular business sales, though not fully reconciled. It directed that the addition be restricted to 8% of the impugned cash deposits, not to be treated as a precedent. Further, it clarified that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017, as per a Madras High Court ruling.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to fully discharge the onus, the Tribunal allowed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,73,892/- considering past savings, and directed that the consequential computation be finalized under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE, as the section applies only from April 1, 2017.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified as the assessee claimed cash was received from members with PAN details provided. Further, CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 discouraged additions in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note failed to clearly demonstrate whether the relevant seized material had any bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as required by Section 153C. The Tribunal found this approach unsustainable in law, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions.

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, referring to a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT, held that EDC payments are liable to TDS under Section 194C of the Act. No interference was found with the lower authorities' decision.

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 noted that for a prior Assessment Year, the CIT(A) had directed the AO to estimate income based on peak credit. Following the principle of consistency and considering no change in circumstances, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate the Assessee's income based on peak credit for the year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 153A for AY 2010-11 was barred by the limitation period. The ten-year block period should be reckoned from the end of the AY relevant to the financial year in which the search was conducted, as per Explanation 1 to Section 153A.

The Tribunal, considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless hearing system, deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove the case at their own risk.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 477 days, subject to a payment of Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's primary legal ground to quash the reopening. This was because the reopening was initiated against a non-existent entity, as confirmed by the company being struck off.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction notes recorded by the Assessing Officer failed to clearly demonstrate whether the seized material had any bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found this approach unsustainable.

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 held that the reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2012-13 were beyond the ten-year limitation period prescribed by Section 149(1) read with Sections 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act. The key issue was the computation of this ten-year block period.

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 acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the faceless hearing system and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given opportunities to present their case, subject to their own risk.

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 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 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 Section 14A could not have been invoked when no exempt income was earned. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i), the Tribunal found that the payments were for services utilized outside India and were not taxable in India, hence Section 195 was not applicable.

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.