ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal restored the issue of carry forward of business losses to the AO for verification, allowing it for statistical purposes. The issues of bad debts and Section 115JB were also set aside to the AO for adjudication. The Revenue's grounds regarding Section 14A, Rule 37BA(2), and carried forward long-term capital loss were decided against the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that once a search action is initiated, all other assessment or re-assessment proceedings ought to be treated as abated in light of Section 153A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds, emphasizing a liberal approach for condonation of delay as per Apex Court judgments. Considering the bonafide reasons and the assessment order being passed ex-parte, the matter was restored for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-adjudicate the issue of interest on outstanding receivables from AEs after netting off amounts payable to AEs on a qua AE basis. It also directed verification of the assessee's claim regarding ICDS advisory adjustment and allowed credit for suo moto withdrawal of health and education cess. Interest under sections 234A and 234B was to be charged on the finally computed income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence, as the AO failed to provide a remand report. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence, as the AO failed to provide a remand report. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence, as the AO failed to provide a remand report. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence, as the AO failed to provide a remand report. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's claim that purchases from M/s Parth International were genuine, considering them as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found the gross profit estimations by both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC to be too high.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's claim that purchases from M/s Parth International were genuine, considering them as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found the gross profit estimations by both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC to be too high.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the assessee's claim that purchases from M/s Parth International were genuine, considering them as accommodation entries. However, the Tribunal found the gross profit estimations by both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC to be too high.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was based on mere inquiries and lacked specific findings about how the assessment order was prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view based on available material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that there was no actual transfer of shares or immovable property by the assessee, but merely a reduction in shareholding percentage due to a fresh issuance of shares by the companies. Following the Delhi High Court's ruling, it was held that such a reduction does not constitute relinquishment of a right by the existing shareholder if no offer of rights was made, thus no capital gain could be attributed to the assessee. Any income arising from such transactions would be taxable in the hands of the actual transferors of shares.

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities on foreign exchange loss and brokerage disallowance but directing verification of the correct amount. The TDS disallowance ground was allowed for statistical purposes pending verification.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were recorded after the approval from the PCIT, which is contrary to the statutory requirement that reasons must be recorded first. Thus, the approval was not valid, and the assumption of jurisdiction was without proper authority. The notice u/s 148 and the consequent assessment were quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it was a duplicate. The Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty must also fall. The principle 'Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus' was applied, meaning the superstructure falls if the foundation is removed.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10B online on or before filing the ITR is a curable defect and not mandatory. The delay in filing the audit report is condonable, and denial of exemption on this ground is not justified.

The tribunal found the assessee's explanation of collecting cash from relatives for property purchase to be improbable. The principles of Muslim law regarding joint ownership were deemed irrelevant given the circumstances of the cash seizure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits through cash sales, realization from debtors, and existing cash in hand. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had accepted the total sales, including cash sales, in the return of income, making the addition a case of double addition.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot question the method adopted by the assessee for valuation unless a defect is shown. Since the AO did not demonstrate any error in the valuation reports or the methods used, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed six-year period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. For AY 2016-17, the notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2022 was deemed bad in law because the approval for its issuance beyond three years was granted by the Principal CIT instead of the Principal Chief CIT as required by section 151.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed six-year period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. For AY 2016-17, the notice under section 148 dated 29.06.2022 was deemed bad in law because the approval for its issuance beyond three years was granted by the Principal CIT instead of the Principal Chief CIT as required by section 151.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had made an attempt to prove the source of cash deposits from scrap sales, the evidence provided was not entirely satisfactory. However, the Revenue's disbelieving of the assessee's contention was also not fully justified. The Tribunal decided to make a lump-sum addition of Rs. 8 lakh, not to be treated as a precedent, and directed that the tax should be levied under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE as it applied from April 1, 2017.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, ruling that the assessee had until February 6, 2025, to complete construction, had incurred substantial expenses, and furnished completion certificates by January 2, 2025, which was well within the statutory period. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no legal infirmity, as the construction was completed within the three-year timeframe stipulated by Section 54, and the Revenue failed to controvert these findings.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not justified as there was no new material showing suppression or omission. It further held that the late delivery charges were contractual compensation for delayed delivery, not a penalty for legal infringement, and thus were allowable as a business expense.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to re-consider transfer pricing comparables after properly applying filters, specifically excluding one company that failed the turnover filter. The addition made on account of delayed provident fund contributions was deleted, following a co-ordinate bench's order where similar technical glitches were considered beyond the assessee's control.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was done without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(E) should have provided a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the applications for registration and approval.

The Tribunal relied on its previous orders concerning the same assessee, holding that no valid satisfaction was recorded by the AO under Section 14A(2) for the disallowance and that software expenses, being linked to computers, were allowable. Consequently, the Revenue's grounds were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the evidence regarding management fee, including the Management Services Agreement and Form 26AS. For bad debts, the CIT(A) considered invoices and accrual basis accounting. For depreciation, evidence was produced before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal and without jurisdiction because the material used was seized from a third party, and the mandatory procedure under Section 153C, including recording satisfaction notes, was not followed. The addition for the gold bar was also found to be unsustainable due to lack of rebuttal to the assessee's explanation and supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal and without jurisdiction because the material used was seized from a third party, and the mandatory procedure under Section 153C, including recording satisfaction notes, was not followed. The addition for the gold bar was also found to be unsustainable due to lack of rebuttal to the assessee's explanation and supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal and without jurisdiction because the material used was seized from a third party, and the mandatory procedure under Section 153C, including recording satisfaction notes, was not followed. The addition for the gold bar was also found to be unsustainable due to lack of rebuttal to the assessee's explanation and supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal and without jurisdiction because the material used was seized from a third party, and the mandatory procedure under Section 153C, including recording satisfaction notes, was not followed. The addition for the gold bar was also found to be unsustainable due to lack of rebuttal to the assessee's explanation and supporting documents.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) back to the AO for fresh adjudication, stating that the nature of all transferred assets needs to be examined. However, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the notional interest addition, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case by the High Court and ITAT Special Bench.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT) erred in revising the assessment under Section 263 without identifying specific errors in the AO's order. The PCIT's order was set aside as illegal.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection of the application was not sustainable, especially since the CIT(E) himself was of the belief that the assessee had commenced charitable activities. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant the registration.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E)'s rejection of the application was not sustainable, especially since the CIT(E) himself was of the belief that the assessee had commenced charitable activities. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(E) to grant the registration.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was illegal and without jurisdiction because the material used was seized from a third party, and the mandatory procedure under Section 153C, including recording satisfaction notes, was not followed. The addition for the gold bar was also found to be unsustainable due to lack of rebuttal to the assessee's explanation and supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that Section 69 can only be invoked when an investment is not recorded in the books of account and the explanation offered is unsatisfactory. Since the assessee had recorded the investment in its books and provided details of payments through banking channels to the CIT(A), the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits declared as sales in the books of account, which are not rejected by the AO, cannot be treated as unexplained income. Following precedents, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was liable to be quashed as it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act and the provisions of TOLA were not applicable. The approval for issuing the notice was also found to be not in consonance with Section 151.

The Tribunal found that no new or additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A) that required an application under Rule 46A. The submissions made and documents filed (VAT returns, sales register, cash book, bank statements) were not considered additional evidence and were either filed before the AO or were not new evidence. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue had no substance.

The Tribunal held that the AO's recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, instead of independent notes for each year, was fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. This decision was based on precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the jurisdictional Delhi High Court, with the Supreme Court having dismissed the revenue's SLP against the Karnataka High Court's order.

The Tribunal held that the AO's recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, instead of independent notes for each year, was fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. This decision was based on precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the jurisdictional Delhi High Court, with the Supreme Court having dismissed the revenue's SLP against the Karnataka High Court's order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal before it, considering it not substantial. It also directed the NFAC (erstwhile CIT(A)) to admit the appeal and adjudicate it on merits, after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was wrongly invoked as no unexplained money or valuable article was found, only documents detailing commission. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat 20% of the gross commission as income, allowing for relevant expenses.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not considered the evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination, with an opportunity for the assessee to present all requisite documents.