ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration retrospectively. The provisions regarding 'specified violations' and consequential withdrawal of registration were introduced effective from April 1, 2022, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed on the erroneous premise that the revised return was not e-verified. Furthermore, no statutory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Therefore, the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not sustained.

The Tribunal condoned the 474-day delay in filing the present appeal, considering the assessee's explanation and the liberal approach towards condonation of delays for substantial justice. However, regarding the first appeal, the Tribunal reserved liberty for the assessee to file a condonation application before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration retrospectively. The provisions regarding 'specified violations' and consequential withdrawal of registration were introduced effective from April 1, 2022, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given a proper opportunity to explain the cash deposit. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to produce documents and that the CIT(E) had not properly verified the submitted documents. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were quashed.

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 interest income earned by the assessee on housing loans advanced to employees is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. This is because such incidental income is considered an integral part of the export business activity and arises from commercial expediency.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague, generic, and lacked application of mind, failing to establish a nexus between the seized material and the assessee's assessment year. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C and the consequent assessment order were vitiated in law.

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.

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 condoned the delay due to the assessee's bona fide belief that the appeal was pending. Following the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal held that Section 194H is not applicable to the facts.

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 found that the Assessing Officer mistakenly relied on the statement of 'Smt. Priti Singla' instead of 'Smt. Sonia Singla'. Furthermore, following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborating material.

The Tribunal held that when professionals provide incorrect legal advice, tax authorities should be more lenient. The CIT(A) was not considered benevolent in not condoning the delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

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 interest income earned by the assessee on housing loans advanced to employees is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act. This is because such incidental income is considered an integral part of the export business activity and arises from commercial expediency.

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 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 held that the addition was not sustainable as the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68. The purchase and sale of shares were through banking channels, dematerialized, and supported by documentation, with no cogent material to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Considering the ex-parte nature of the assessment order and the CIT(A) order, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was vitiated due to non-application of mind. The Tribunal also found no substance in the allegation of bogus LTCG, as the AO's findings were countered by the circumstances and background of the transaction.

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 additions on account of sale of diamonds and commission expenditure were not sustainable, following a coordinate bench's decision in a related case. The protective addition for unexplained jewellery was also deleted as it was found at a different family member's premises.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not independently examined the contracts for the assessment years in question and had wrongly relied on past assessments. It found that the offshore supply of equipment and design services were inextricably linked and not taxable in India if no PE existed.

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's 8-month delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing sufficient cause due to the arrest and custody of a key person managing the company. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal on merits without first condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not independently examined the contracts for the assessment years in question and had wrongly relied on past assessments. It found that the offshore supply of equipment and design services were inextricably linked and not taxable in India if no PE existed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was vague, generic, and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the notice and assessment order were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked due application of mind. Consequently, the entire search assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee, a salaried employee, revised the return due to a wrong belief about VRS benefits' taxability. Since the original return matched TDS details and the assessee accepted the assessment order, there was no intention to under-report or mis-report income, and no loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not independently examined the contracts for the assessment years in question and had wrongly relied on past assessments. It found that the offshore supply of equipment and design services were inextricably linked and not taxable in India if no PE existed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not independently examined the contracts for the assessment years in question and had wrongly relied on past assessments. It found that the offshore supply of equipment and design services were inextricably linked and not taxable in India if no PE existed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not independently examined the contracts for the assessment years in question and had wrongly relied on past assessments. It found that the offshore supply of equipment and design services were inextricably linked and not taxable in India if no PE existed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 253 of the Act that allows an appeal against the rejection of a condonation of delay application by the Ld. CIT(E) under Section 119(2)(b). Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the additions on account of sale of diamonds and commission expenditure were not sustainable, following a coordinate bench's decision in a related case. The protective addition for unexplained jewellery was also deleted as it was found at a different family member's premises.

The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the assessee's statement and the fact that the order was communicated on 26.09.2024. As the assessee's counsel could not establish a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration retrospectively. The provisions regarding 'specified violations' and consequential withdrawal of registration were introduced effective from April 1, 2022, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal found that while the reopening itself was challenged, the merits involved the claimed sale of ancestral agricultural land and associated bank deposits. However, due to the need for verification of these claims, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.

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 Revenue failed to discharge the onus of proving an arrangement between the assessee and its associated enterprise to earn extraordinary profits. The Tribunal also found the ad hoc disallowance of expenses by the AO unsustainable.

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 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 the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration retrospectively. The provisions regarding 'specified violations' and consequential withdrawal of registration were introduced effective from April 1, 2022, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the registration retrospectively. The provisions regarding 'specified violations' and consequential withdrawal of registration were introduced effective from April 1, 2022, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of the loan's identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness, especially considering the repayment. Following precedent, the additions were deleted.

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 since the quantum assessment orders were set aside by the First Appellate Authority, the substratum of the penalty orders, which arose from those assessment orders, was demolished and thus the penalty orders were liable to be quashed. The appeals were allowed.