ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

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 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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer are bad in law, as the faceless assessment scheme requires such notices to be issued by a faceless authority. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was invalid, vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the figure mentioned in the computation sheet was correct and the figure in the body of the assessment order was incorrect due to an error in calculation by the AO. The Tribunal held that the basis for assuming revision jurisdiction was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's books of account were accepted with regard to sales turnover and no specific defect was found. The business involved significant cash transactions, and the generation of cash was reflected in the cash books, stock records, and VAT returns.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing the Assessee an opportunity of being heard and without deciding all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A).

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 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 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 approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical and without application of mind. Therefore, the assessment order is vitiated.

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 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 held that Section 69C is applicable when the source of expenditure is unexplained, not when the expenditure itself is found to be not genuine. Since the AO disallowed purchases as bogus after making enquiries, Section 69C was not applicable. Therefore, the PCIT's order was quashed.

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 once a customs duty demand is quantified and paid, it is an allowable deduction in the year of payment under Section 43B, irrespective of any pending adjudication. The Tribunal also noted that offering the refunded amount to tax in a future year prevents double taxation.

The Tribunal held that once a customs duty demand is quantified and paid, it is an allowable deduction in the year of payment under Section 43B, irrespective of any pending adjudication. The Tribunal also noted that offering the refunded amount to tax in a future year prevents double taxation.

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 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 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 restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to admit and verify the additional evidence. Regarding the section 115BBE addition, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to finalize computation under normal provisions, citing a High Court judgment that section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

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 reassessment proceedings were not valid as the AO merely relied on information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind or verification. The addition made under Section 56(2)(vii) was not a valid assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147.

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 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 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 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 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 furnishing the Audit Report before the specified date, as defined under Section 44AB, is a procedural requirement. Even if filed after the due date but before the completion of assessment, it should not impede the consideration of the deduction claim, provided other conditions are met.

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 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 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 the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not properly recorded. It was found that the AO failed to demonstrate how the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income for the specific assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not properly recorded. It was found that the AO failed to demonstrate how the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income for the specific assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not properly recorded. It was found that the AO failed to demonstrate how the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income for the specific assessment years in question.

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 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 held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was not properly recorded. It was found that the AO failed to demonstrate how the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income for the specific assessment years in question.

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 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 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 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 since the underlying assessments were quashed and deemed bad in law, the penalties levied based on those assessments cannot survive. Therefore, the penalties were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte. Considering the assessee is an elderly lady and requested another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) to allow for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the period of ten assessment years for section 153C proceedings should be reckoned from the date of receipt of seized documents by the Assessing Officer of the non-searched person. Since the assessee's AO received the records in AY 2022-23, the ten-year period ended at AY 2013-14, making AY 2012-13 time-barred.

The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals filed by the assessee on merit, acknowledging the typographical error in the lower authority's order. Consequently, both appeals of the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the bonus payment issue, if not claimed as an expense in the preceding year, should be allowed in the current year on a payment basis after verification by the AO. Similarly, regarding the provision for employee payments, if it was offered for tax in the preceding year, no further addition is required.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under section 153D for the assessment orders was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated.