ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) were defective and did not demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal noted that the AO had ignored the fact that the assessment was already completed and that the assessee had filed a voluntary return.

The tribunal held that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without giving the assessee an opportunity to file additional evidences, which violates principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. The tribunal decided to restore the issues to the NFAC.

The Tribunal held that for levying penalty under Section 271DA for violation of Section 269ST, it is mandatory to record satisfaction in the assessment order. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that for levying penalty under Section 271DA for violation of Section 269ST, it is mandatory to record satisfaction in the assessment order. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, considering the various extensions and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the entire proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not deal with the matter on merits by passing a reasoned order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the Learned AO to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority had passed their orders ex parte, without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the case was restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, considering the various extensions and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the entire proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, to prevent miscarriage of justice, granted the assessee a further opportunity to be heard. The orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh, provided the assessee cooperated.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard and consider any evidence submitted.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 32 days in filing the appeals. Observing that ex-parte proceedings might lead to communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a further opportunity of being heard. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is heard and evidence is considered.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between 'grant' and 'donation' is significant. A grant is for a specified purpose with stipulations, while a donation has no such restrictions. The payments made by the assessee were for specific charitable activities confirmed by the recipient organizations. Therefore, the disallowance was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. On merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition made by the AO regarding cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that in quantum proceedings, a Co-ordinate Bench had allowed the assessee's appeal, leading to the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty order was held not to survive.

The Tribunal agreed that the purchases were bogus but upheld the principle of taxing only the profit element, modifying the addition from 20% to 15% of the disputed purchases. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that notices under Section 148 and subsequent assessment orders must be addressed to the correct person, not a deceased individual. Issuing them to a deceased assessee makes the proceedings a nullity, following the High Court's decision in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that notices under Section 148 and subsequent assessment orders must be addressed to the correct person, not a deceased individual. Issuing them to a deceased assessee makes the proceedings a nullity, following the High Court's decision in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that notices under Section 148 and subsequent assessment orders must be addressed to the correct person, not a deceased individual. Issuing them to a deceased assessee makes the proceedings a nullity, following the High Court's decision in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was defective and the CIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to cancel registration retrospectively. The alleged violations pertained to a period prior to the new regime under Section 12AB(4), rendering the invocation of the section invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's show cause notice was defective as it did not clearly specify the grounds for the proposed addition, violating the principles of natural justice. The addition made under Section 69C was therefore unjustified.

The Tribunal agreed that the purchases were bogus but upheld the principle of taxing only the profit element, modifying the addition from 20% to 15% of the disputed purchases. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that notices under Section 148 and subsequent assessment orders must be addressed to the correct person, not a deceased individual. Issuing them to a deceased assessee makes the proceedings a nullity, following the High Court's decision in Savita Kapila vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider fresh evidence and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal remitted the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence and giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient funds from her retirement gratuity. The AO failed to provide evidence of any other source of income or that the withdrawn amount was used elsewhere, and the explanation of currency exchange was plausible. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had actually advanced the sum of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- to M/s MKD Construction Pvt. Ltd., as evidenced by the assessee's balance sheet, tax audit report, and bank statements, contrary to the AO's belief that it was received.

The Tribunal held that in case of search assessments framed under Section 153A, there is no requirement of issuing a separate notice under Section 143(2) as the notice under Section 153A itself serves the purpose. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the net profit rate on differential sales to an average of 6.46%. For unsecured loans, the issue of creditworthiness and genuineness of one creditor was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions and High Court rulings, stating that the revenue failed to provide material linking the assessee to dubious transactions or price rigging. The additions were based on presumptions rather than evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim credit for the TDS deducted on the part payment received in AY 2023-24, as the entire sale consideration was already offered and taxed in AY 2019-20. Income should not be taxed twice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing confirmations, ITRs, bank statements, and other evidence for the sources of funds. The additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were found unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders despite opportunities given to the assessee. The assessee's contention regarding the CHA error causing misreporting of export sales was to be examined at the AO's level.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, citing precedents from the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A/153C were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not seeking a remand report from the AO, especially since one party had admitted to providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal remitted the issue of bogus purchases back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee filed the Form 10-IC before the due date for the AY 2023-24 and that once exercised, the option applies to subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the concessional tax regime.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh decision. The assessee is to be given a fair opportunity to be heard and submit documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not considering the revised Tax Audit Report and challans submitted by the assessee, which demonstrated timely deposit of employee contributions. The matter was remanded for verification of these documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is unwarranted in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merit and had passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the issues in dispute were remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, similar to decisions in the assessee's own case and other High Court rulings. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A/153C were quashed.

The Tribunal agreed that the purchases were bogus but upheld the principle of taxing only the profit element, modifying the addition from 20% to 15% of the disputed purchases. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, citing precedents from the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153A/153C were quashed.

The Tribunal held that generating surplus in a given year or set of years is not per se a bar for exemption, provided such surplus is generated in the course of providing education or educational activities. It also noted that the question of whether funds transferred to a development fund were applied exclusively towards the society's objects needed to be examined.