ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the non-initiation of penalty proceedings does not make the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, especially when the assessee complied with the notice and paid taxes, and there were no additions to income. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances and penalties were not based on specific seized material and the assessments were not sustainable in law. The appeals were allowed, quashing the impugned assessments and penalties.

The Tribunal held that the relevant date for reckoning the ten assessment years under section 153C is the date of receipt of seized documents by the assessee's Assessing Officer, not the date of the original search. Therefore, the assessment years in question were beyond the permissible period.

The Tribunal held that the relevant date for reckoning the ten assessment years under section 153C is the date of receipt of seized documents by the assessee's Assessing Officer, not the date of the original search. Therefore, the assessment years in question were beyond the permissible period.

The Tribunal held that the relevant date for reckoning the ten assessment years under section 153C is the date of receipt of seized documents by the assessee's Assessing Officer, not the date of the original search. Therefore, the assessment years in question were beyond the permissible period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the relevant date for counting the ten assessment years is when the AO of the non-searched person receives the seized material. Since this date was in AY 2022-23, the assessments for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 fell outside the permissible period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the relevant date for counting the ten assessment years is when the AO of the non-searched person receives the seized material. Since this date was in AY 2022-23, the assessments for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 fell outside the permissible period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the relevant date for counting the ten assessment years is when the AO of the non-searched person receives the seized material. Since this date was in AY 2022-23, the assessments for AY 2010-11 to 2012-13 fell outside the permissible period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty notices must clearly specify the specific limb of the relevant section (e.g., concealment vs. inaccurate particulars for Section 271(1)(c), or under-reporting vs. mis-reporting for Section 270A). Failure to do so renders the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty notices must clearly specify the specific limb of the relevant section (e.g., concealment vs. inaccurate particulars for Section 271(1)(c), or under-reporting vs. mis-reporting for Section 270A). Failure to do so renders the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty notices must clearly specify the specific limb of the relevant section (e.g., concealment vs. inaccurate particulars for Section 271(1)(c), or under-reporting vs. mis-reporting for Section 270A). Failure to do so renders the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that penalty notices must clearly specify the specific limb of the relevant section (e.g., concealment vs. inaccurate particulars for Section 271(1)(c), or under-reporting vs. mis-reporting for Section 270A). Failure to do so renders the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in issuing TDS certificates, as explained in the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(g) was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the possibility of communication gaps. The Tribunal noted a lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order and therefore set aside the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that Form 9A was filed along with the original return. Therefore, the issue of exercising the option under Section 11(1) Explanation clause (2) was set aside to the AO for fresh examination and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances and penalties were not based on specific seized material and the assessments were not sustainable in law. The appeals were allowed, quashing the impugned assessments and penalties.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not fulfilled his judicial duties by not properly determining the facts of the case. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain its position and to conduct a judicial verification of the facts.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances and penalties were not based on specific seized material and the assessments were not sustainable in law. The appeals were allowed, quashing the impugned assessments and penalties.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was empowered to assume jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issue of bogus capital gains was still pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds challenging the PCIT's jurisdiction were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of rebates/discounts requires further verification by the AO, remitting it back for detailed examination of agreements. The disallowance of written-off advances was upheld as a business loss, following various High Court and Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was engaged in accommodation entry business and upheld the estimation of commission income at 5% of credit entries in the bank account. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was engaged in accommodation entry business and upheld the estimation of commission income at 5% of credit entries in the bank account. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was engaged in accommodation entry business and upheld the estimation of commission income at 5% of credit entries in the bank account. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was engaged in accommodation entry business and upheld the estimation of commission income at 5% of credit entries in the bank account. Both the assessee's and revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances and penalties were not based on specific seized material and the assessments were not sustainable in law. The appeals were allowed, quashing the impugned assessments and penalties.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond four years without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances and penalties were not based on specific seized material and the assessments were not sustainable in law. The appeals were allowed, quashing the impugned assessments and penalties.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the entire credit of foreign taxes deducted in Japan, even if the taxability in India was nil due to Section 10A deduction or brought-forward losses. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision and the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of genuine cash sales, supported by VAT returns and sales vouchers. The AO failed to disprove the evidence or reject the assessee's books of account.

The Tribunal found that the TPO's rejection of the Resale Price Method (RPM) and adoption of TNMM at the entity level for benchmarking was not fully justified, especially considering the low percentage of international transaction costs. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO/TPO for re-benchmarking.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had attempted to explain the source of deposits, the explanation was not fully satisfactory, especially given the abnormal cash sales during a short period. Consequently, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the nature and source of the transactions under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. The absence of sufficient explanation and corroborating evidence led to the confirmation of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the nature and source of the transactions under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act. The absence of sufficient explanation and corroborating evidence led to the confirmation of the additions.

The Tribunal held that payments towards EDC charges were in the nature of payments to a contractor attracting TDS under Section 194C of the Act. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was rightly held to be in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a PE in India, and offshore supplies and global operation fees are not taxable in India. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the revenue earned from providing access to online journals and books is not taxable as royalty or FTS under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions on identical facts, stating that the receipts were business profits and not taxable in India due to the absence of a permanent establishment.

The Tribunal found that the assessment and the CIT(A)'s order were made on the deceased assessee. There was no finding regarding the appointment of the legal representative or her possession of assets. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not satisfy the 'make available' condition under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in identical prior years. Therefore, the receipts are not taxable as FTS.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had adopted the DTVSV-2024 scheme and had applied for withdrawal of the appeal. The departmental representative had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had given a well-reasoned order by accepting the revised valuation report. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the deletion of additions related to plant and machinery.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the order under Section 263 on the basis of available material without hearing the assessee. Observing that the assessee could not receive the notices, the Tribunal considered it essential to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had given a well-reasoned order by accepting the revised valuation report. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the deletion of additions related to plant and machinery.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the entire credit of foreign taxes deducted in Japan, even if the taxability in India was nil due to Section 10A deductions or brought-forward losses. The Tribunal relied on its own prior decision and the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the taxability of receipts for Loyalty Programme, Reservation Fee, and Marketing Fee, the Tribunal noted that this issue was covered by favorable decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier Assessment Years, including decisions by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The DRP itself acknowledged that the Hon'ble ITAT had adjudicated the issue in favor of the assessee for AY 2015-16, and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had done so for AY 2015-16 in August 2024. Following these precedents, the Tribunal held that these receipts are not in the nature of Royalty or FTS under the Act and the India-Singapore DTAA. The AO was directed to delete the addition of INR 24,57,25,903/-. The ratio is that centralized services like loyalty programs, reservation, and marketing, when not involving the use of identifiable IP or technical services in the nature of royalty, are not taxable as such under the treaty. 2. On the issue of surcharge and education cess, the Tribunal, respectfully following judicial precedents in similar treaty contexts (India-USA and India-France DTAA), held that surcharge and education cess are not leviable when the tax rate is prescribed under the DTAA. The AO was directed to delete the surcharge and health and education cess levied on the income-tax on a gross basis under the India-Singapore DTAA. This ground was allowed. 3. In view of the decision on the primary issue, the AO was directed to recalculate interest under Section 234B and 234C in accordance with law. This ground was partly allowed. 4. The issue of penalty proceedings under Section 270A was rendered academic in view of the decision on the primary issue and was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could fully explain the source of cash deposits nor could the department disregard all evidence. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal confirmed the addition but reduced it from Rs. 11,59,000/- to Rs. 2,59,000/-, granting relief of Rs. 9,00,000/-, and specified it would not be a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not have rejected the assessee's valuation report without referring the matter to the DVO. The CIT(A) also erred in directing the AO to apply Land & Development Office conversion rates. The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary documentary evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan transaction, including the source of funds for the lender. The AO had failed to consider this evidence properly.

The Tribunal held that the commencement date for computation of the six/ten assessment years under Section 153C is the date of receipt of books of account/materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. The satisfaction note date by the AO of the non-searched person becomes the effective date. The impugned assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 were found to be outside the block period.