ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

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 case was re-opened based on a change of opinion without independent verification and that the transaction was duly reflected in the original assessment. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 due to non-filing of the audit report in Form 10B, without affording an opportunity under Section 139(9), was debatable and the absence of the audit report is a curable defect. The disallowance of entire expenses was also deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition on technical grounds, noting the AO's lack of verification. However, considering the factual nature of whether imports were recorded in the company's books, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition on technical grounds, noting the AO's lack of verification. However, considering the factual nature of whether imports were recorded in the company's books, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition on technical grounds, noting the AO's lack of verification. However, considering the factual nature of whether imports were recorded in the company's books, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition on technical grounds, noting the AO's lack of verification. However, considering the factual nature of whether imports were recorded in the company's books, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the assessee was a verbatim copy of the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person. This mechanical reproduction, without independent application of mind, rendered the proceedings under Section 153C bad in law.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, was deleted by the coordinate bench, the penalty levied is non-surviving. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 15,49,120/- was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the plausible reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the assessee was a verbatim copy of the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person. This mechanical reproduction, without independent application of mind, rendered the proceedings under Section 153C bad in law.

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 additions cannot be made solely on the basis of third-party statements without corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on documents found from third-party searches were procedurally defective as the mandatory procedures under Section 148 and related provisions were not followed.

The Tribunal held that the loan from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. was genuine, following a previous co-ordinate bench decision. The loan from M/s Dhankalash Distributors Pvt. Ltd. was also found to be genuine after considering the lender's financial capacity. Consequently, the interest paid on the genuine loan was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the assessee was a verbatim copy of the satisfaction note of the AO of the searched person. This mechanical reproduction, without independent application of mind, rendered the proceedings under Section 153C bad in law.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the addition for cash deposits and reversing the addition for interest on enhanced compensation. The remaining addition on account of cash deposits was set at Rs. 10,00,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 18.04.2022 was barred by limitation. The reassessment proceedings based on this invalid notice were deemed unsustainable and any additions made were liable to be deleted.

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

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 held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The delay was considered gross negligence and inaction, and the CIT(A)'s order of not condoning the delay was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order of dismissing the appeals due to delay was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the new management was not aware of the proceedings and compliance could not be made. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order of dismissing the appeals due to delay was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order of dismissing the appeals due to delay was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order of dismissing the appeals due to delay was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits, making his explanation questionable. The fragmented pattern of deposits and lack of supporting documentation for a property transaction further weakened the claim.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to provide details but, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to provide necessary evidence.

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.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences and decide the appeal after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, acknowledging that the assessee had failed to comply with the AO.

The Tribunal found that the new management was not aware of the proceedings and compliance could not be made. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C applies when the source of expenditure is unexplained, not when the expenditure is found to be related to a bogus entity. The AO had already disallowed the purchases as bogus under Section 37(1), and invoking Section 69C was not appropriate. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.

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.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging that the assessee was unaware of the new faceless procedure and that there was no mala fide intention. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to provide necessary details.

The Tribunal held that in non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell, the Tribunal found no such material was brought on record.

The Tribunal held that affiliation with a board like CBSE or the Directorate of Education is not a mandatory requirement for an institution to be considered an 'educational institution' under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The decision relied on the Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of Delhi Music Society.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to appreciate that proper enquiry and examination were made by the AO. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order which dismissed the appeals on merits, noting that the tax dispute was already settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeals were restored to their original numbers.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order which dismissed the appeals on merits, noting that the tax dispute was already settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeals were restored to their original numbers.

The Tribunal held that in non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell, the Tribunal found no such material was brought on record.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, despite the original assessment being completed under section 143(2). The assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that in non-abated assessment years, additions under Section 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell, the Tribunal found no such material was brought on record.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the period of limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajiv Bansal. Consequently, the impugned orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the loans received from M/s Hallow Securities Pvt. Ltd. were genuine and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the disallowance of interest paid on these loans was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable when the cash deposited is recorded in the books of account and its source (cash sales) is also accepted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, dealing in cash sales, naturally deposited accumulated cash during demonetization to avoid issues with old currency.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill acquired through a slump sale is allowable, and bad debts written off are also deductible. The principle of consistency with previous assessment years was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the seized materials, specifically blank letterheads, were 'dumb documents' and could not form the basis for any addition. The AO's case was based on suspicion rather than concrete incriminating evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made by the AO regarding cash credit and disallowed interest on unsecured loans. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 41(1) and disallowed expenses under Section 37(1), finding the AO's additions to be uncalled for.

The tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were based on a wrong assumption of fact, as the assessee had indeed filed a return of income for the relevant assessment year. The reasons for reopening were found to be invalid and unsustainable.