ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

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 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.

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 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 assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing cogent documentary evidence and repaying the loans. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that under the pre-amendment Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year was the terminal point for initiating reassessment. For AY 2016-17, this period ended on 31 March 2023.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not impede substantial justice and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to plead and prove their case at their own risk.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure justice, acknowledging potential communication issues with the virtual hearing mechanism.

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 AO's reasons for reassessment were vague, general, and based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. The reassessment was initiated without confronting the assessee with the material relied upon and without proper disposal of objections.

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 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 assessment year 2011-12 falls outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act, as the relevant date for reckoning the period should be from when the seized material was handed over or satisfaction was recorded, not the search date. Consequently, the assessment was beyond the prescribed limitation.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reassessment were vague, general, and based on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind. The reassessment was initiated without confronting the assessee with the material relied upon and without proper disposal of objections.

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 held that the assessment year 2011-12 falls outside the scope of Section 153C of the Act, as the relevant date for reckoning the period should be from when the seized material was handed over or satisfaction was recorded, not the search date. Consequently, the assessment was beyond the prescribed limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind, as the AO relied solely on information from the Investigation Wing without independent verification. The Tribunal found the reasons recorded to be vague and lacking in independent analysis.

The Tribunal found that the Assessee had produced evidence for cash deposits and cost of improvement which were not considered by the authorities below. Therefore, both issues were remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the embedded income on bogus purchases at 6% of such purchases. The disallowance under Section 14A was also dismissed due to the absence of exempt income.

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 held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and without deciding all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.

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 Section 48 of the Act allows deduction of expenditures incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of a capital asset, along with the cost of acquisition and improvement. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gains accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities could not have summarily rejected the assessee's explanation linking the cash deposits to regular business sales. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was deemed appropriate, without setting a precedent.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the embedded income on bogus purchases at 6% of such purchases. The disallowance under Section 14A was also dismissed due to the absence of exempt income.

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 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 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 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 notice issued under Section 148 was illegal and without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain prior approval from the 'specified authority' as required by Section 151 of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire proceedings.

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 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 notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this invalid notice was 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 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 allowed the indexed cost of improvement for the house property as it was an integral part of the property. It partly allowed the set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss, directing the AO to allow it after verification, and also partly allowed the claim for donation deductions under Section 80G and 80GGA, remanding the issue to the AO for re-adjudication based on new facts.

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 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 the pension received by the assessee is exempt from taxation in India as per Article 19(2)(b) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the applicability of Section 194C was settled by the Delhi High Court in the case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found the grounds raised by the assessee to have no substance.

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

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 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.