ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act for reopening the assessment, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This failure vitiates the reopening proceedings.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the newly introduced virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the combined approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even if it involves a single assessee. Relying on various precedents, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's ground regarding the invalidity of the approval.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. The reopening was quashed on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It reasoned that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were themselves deleted by the CIT(A), no concealed income remained to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty. It reasoned that since the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were themselves deleted by the CIT(A), no concealed income remained to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal found no reason to accept either party's stand entirely, as the additions were based on an alleged inflated rate of expenditure. A lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakh (Rs.50,000/- each instance) was deemed appropriate, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that a reopening based solely on the premise of accommodation entries without making any addition on that account is not sustainable in law. Citing the case of CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the reopening.

The Tribunal, following its own previous order in the assessee's own case for a similar assessment year, held that the revenue authorities had wrongly invoked the TDS provisions. The peculiar facts of the case did not warrant the disallowance of TDS on crane hiring charges.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had submitted its cash flow statement and evidence but held that the onus of proof was not satisfactorily discharged. Considering the possibility of cash withdrawals and sales in the regular business activity, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps leading to the ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 55-day delay, considering the medical unfitness as a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the DVO's report was binding on the departmental authorities. It was deemed appropriate to restore the ground to the Assessing Officer for a fresh computation of long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments of surplus funds in cooperative banks and interest on Income Tax refunds are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and decisions of coordinate benches.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already remanded the Section 80G approval matter to the CIT(E). Therefore, the present appeal concerning the Section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) application was also restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the actual date of salary disbursement to determine the due date for PF/ESI deposit, referencing a precedent for a liberal interpretation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the addition on account of cash deposits as the assessee had explained the source from previous withdrawals. The addition on account of agricultural income was also deleted as the assessee had inadvertently added an extra zero in the original return, which was rectified in a revised return.

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional grounds under Rule 27 and held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the surviving time limit, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the reference to the DVO on a wrong premise that the assessees had sold the property, whereas they had purchased it. Furthermore, the variation between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was only 1.71%, which is a minor variation. The Tribunal also noted that the approval granted by the JCIT for the assessment was mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the reference to the DVO on a wrong premise that the assessees had sold the property, whereas they had purchased it. Furthermore, the variation between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was only 1.71%, which is a minor variation. The Tribunal also noted that the approval granted by the JCIT for the assessment was mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 05/2024. The appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn and was dismissed accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously restored a similar appeal of the assessee. Following that precedent and with the consensus of both parties, the Tribunal restored the Revenue's appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's jurisdiction u/s 263 was barred as the issues raised in the show cause notice were already the subject matter of appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that prevent a Commissioner from exercising revisional powers when the matter is sub-judice before the appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments of surplus funds in cooperative banks and interest on Income Tax refunds are eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and decisions of coordinate benches.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's jurisdiction u/s 263 was barred as the issues raised in the show cause notice were already the subject matter of appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that prevent a Commissioner from exercising revisional powers when the matter is sub-judice before the appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271AA was not leviable as certain transactions were not taxable in India and thus not required to be reported. The appeal was allowed on this specific ground.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's jurisdiction u/s 263 was barred as the issues raised in the show cause notice were already the subject matter of appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that prevent a Commissioner from exercising revisional powers when the matter is sub-judice before the appellate authority.

The Tribunal observed that the bank statement clearly showed the cash deposit was utilized for business purposes, indicating it was out of business sales. While acknowledging non-compliance with notices, the Tribunal allowed 90% of the deposit and directed that Section 115BBE should not be applied as it was effective from a later date.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance of expenses, stating that the concept of personal use is not applicable to a private limited company.

The Tribunal held that agreements to sell, along with details of sellers and buyers, provided a plausible explanation for the source of funds. The Tribunal noted that non-execution of sale deeds due to disputes in joint landholding should not automatically doubt the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. In the absence of such a note, the assessment is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the AO of the searched person is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. In the absence of such a note, the assessment is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that purchases made with E-way bills could not be treated as non-genuine. For purchases made without E-way bills, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a profit element of 6% on such purchases, subject to verification.

The Tribunal held that purchases made with E-way bills could not be treated as non-genuine. For purchases made without E-way bills, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a profit element of 6% on such purchases, subject to verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to bogus sales, trading additions, and court settlement expenses. However, it upheld the disallowance of commission expenses paid to related parties.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not cooperate with the AO's inquiries, and the CIT(A) had deleted the addition without fully appreciating the AO's findings and the non-cooperation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that joint ownership of residential properties at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 54F. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the minimum guarantee payments made by the assessee were not in the nature of rent under Section 194I of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the disallowance of these expenses and the related TDS liability were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents relied upon by the revenue did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, any assessment or addition made on the basis of these documents could not be sustained.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents relied upon by the revenue did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, any assessment or addition made on the basis of these documents could not be sustained.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents relied upon by the revenue did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, any assessment or addition made on the basis of these documents could not be sustained.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents relied upon by the revenue did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, any assessment or addition made on the basis of these documents could not be sustained.

The Tribunal found that the seized documents relied upon by the revenue did not belong to the assessee. Therefore, any assessment or addition made on the basis of these documents could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is fatal to the order of re-assessment. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Dart Infrabuild, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances require restoring the issue on merits for consideration by the AO to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting additional evidence presented by the assessee. It was held that the amount in question represented interest income from disclosed deposits and not un-explained cash credits, thus the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were conducted under the old provisions of law, while the notice was issued after the amendment to Section 148 and 148A of the Act came into effect. This failure to follow the amended law rendered the reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed in time, condoning the delay. It also admitted the additional ground of appeal, finding it to be a purely legal issue. The Tribunal allowed the additional ground based on a similar High Court decision and kept other grounds open.

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and a co-ordinate bench in Jhansi Development Authority, found it appropriate to remit the issue of taxability of DDA under Section 2(15) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessee failed to file a proper application for admitting additional documents. However, in the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence if the Assessee files the required application along with the documents.