ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning Section 10B deductions, finding them covered by previous favorable decisions. For transfer pricing, the issue of comparable companies was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances were allowed.

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 dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning Section 10B deductions, finding them covered by previous favorable decisions. For transfer pricing, the issue of comparable companies was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances 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 bad in law due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction, incorrect recording of reasons, and failure to follow the amended reassessment regime. Consequently, the reassessment and penalties were quashed.

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 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 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 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 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 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 reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction, incorrect recording of reasons, and failure to follow the amended reassessment regime. Consequently, the reassessment and penalties were quashed.

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 reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction, incorrect recording of reasons, and failure to follow the amended reassessment regime. Consequently, the reassessment and penalties were quashed.

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 the assessee, being a charitable trust where members are not entitled to a share in the income, should be taxed at the normal slab rates applicable to an AOP, not the Maximum Marginal Rate. The surcharge should also be applied accordingly.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on the basis of which the assessment was reopened was deleted by the CIT(A), the reopening of assessment under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment order was 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 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 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 held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law because the very basis for reopening, the taxability of the income, had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning Section 10B deductions, finding them covered by previous favorable decisions. For transfer pricing, the issue of comparable companies was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances were allowed.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the orders of the lower authorities. Regarding the deletion of additions, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had a valid registration under section 12AA at the time of assessment, which was later restored. The AO had treated the assessee as an AOP and made additions without adverse material. The Tribunal found that the AO had made additions by taking wrong figures without assigning sources, particularly in the case of hostel activities where the AO's figures were demonstrably incorrect compared to audited financial statements. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not provided any reasons for certain disallowances. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(Appeals)'s findings that the AO's actions were arbitrary and uncalled for. The Tribunal further relied on the principle of consistency, referencing previous Tribunal orders where the assessee was allowed relief for application of income under sections 11 and 12. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for the additions and disallowances made by the AO. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals) with additional observations.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to invalid assumption of jurisdiction, incorrect recording of reasons, and failure to follow the amended reassessment regime. Consequently, the reassessment and penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B cannot be made under Section 143(1) if the issue was debatable at the time of intimation, especially when there was a favorable jurisdictional High Court decision. The matter was restored to the AO for considering an alternative plea regarding the calculation of due dates.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B cannot be made under Section 143(1) if the issue was debatable at the time of intimation, especially when there was a favorable jurisdictional High Court decision. The matter was restored to the AO for considering an alternative plea regarding the calculation of due dates.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153A was not properly served on the assessee while in judicial custody, rendering the proceedings bad in law. It also found that the approval under Section 153D was not granted with due application of mind, as it was given mechanically for multiple cases on a single day.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds concerning Section 10B deductions, finding them covered by previous favorable decisions. For transfer pricing, the issue of comparable companies was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153A was not properly served on the assessee while in judicial custody, rendering the proceedings bad in law. It also found that the approval under Section 153D was not granted with due application of mind, as it was given mechanically for multiple cases on a single day.

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 under Section 153A was not properly served on the assessee while in judicial custody, rendering the proceedings bad in law. It also found that the approval under Section 153D was not granted with due application of mind, as it was given mechanically for multiple cases on a single day.

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 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 discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan transaction. The repayment of the loan through banking channels and the substantial net worth of the lender were considered crucial factors.

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 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 held that the assessee, being a charitable trust where members are not entitled to a share in the income, should be taxed at the normal slab rates applicable to an AOP, not the Maximum Marginal Rate. The surcharge should also be applied accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. The applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for disposal on merits.

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 on the assessee while in judicial custody, rendering the proceedings bad in law. It also found that the approval under Section 153D was not granted with due application of mind, as it was given mechanically for multiple cases on a single day.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. The applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for disposal on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the agreements for transfer of rights in immovable property were not registered, they had no effect in law. Therefore, the transaction could not be considered a 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, and capital gains could not be taxed in the impugned assessment year.

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 held that the 6-year block period for Section 153C assessments should be reckoned from the date of receipt of documents by the assessee's AO. Since the assessment year 2014-15 falls outside this period, the assessment is bad in law.

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 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 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 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 since the Section 143(1) intimation was passed before the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions was not permissible at that stage. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.