ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2025

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 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 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.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C proceedings and the subsequent additions could not have been invoked in the assessee's case. This was because the seized material relevant to the additions did not relate to the assessee but to her HUF.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as there were sufficient reasons for the disruption in the company's working and collection of documents due to the arrest and custody of a key person. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) should not have decided the appeal on merits when the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly examined the issue and arrived at a justifiable decision by restricting the disallowance based on the average net profit ratio. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly examined the issue and arrived at a justifiable decision by restricting the disallowance based on the average net profit ratio. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in treating the difference as business income, especially since the assessee had correctly computed LTCG. The addition of a new head of income was not permissible during section 143(1) processing.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in treating the difference as business income, especially since the assessee had correctly computed LTCG. The addition of a new head of income was not permissible during section 143(1) processing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration application based on investments made prior to claiming exemption under section 11. The assessee had not claimed exemption for those periods.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under Section 151 was mechanical and did not reflect an independent application of mind, quoting CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Pvt. Ltd.

The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This fact remained unrebutted by the department.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the exact ground for levying the penalty (concealment or inaccurate particulars) vitiated the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the purchases were non-genuine and directed the Assessing Officer to sustain a Gross Profit of 5% on the alleged purchases. The appeals were decided based on the findings for the lead case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's rural background and lack of technical knowledge led to ex parte orders. The Tribunal also noted the claim of long-term capital gains and the issue of pre-paid taxes not being considered.

The Tribunal held that interest on loans advanced to AEs, repayable in USD, should be benchmarked using the LIBOR rate plus a margin, not the domestic lending rate. It also remanded the issue of investment verification to the AO and allowed the disallowance of warranty provisions as an ascertained liability.

The Tribunal held that interest on loans advanced to AEs, repayable in USD, should be benchmarked using the LIBOR rate plus a margin, not the domestic lending rate. It also remanded the issue of investment verification to the AO and allowed the disallowance of warranty provisions as an ascertained liability.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that there was no material on record to establish that interest was earned at the notional rate or at all. The addition lacked certainty and corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment lacked independent application of mind and were based on 'borrowed satisfaction'. The proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were found to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80G, following previous judgments that held that disallowance of CSR expenses under Section 37(1) does not preclude deduction under Section 80G. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction of Rs. 3,75,000/-.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that no notional interest can be taxed as income and that the Assessing Officer had not brought any corroborative evidence on record to support the addition. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the purchases were non-genuine and directed the Assessing Officer to sustain a Gross Profit of 5% on the alleged purchases. The appeals were decided based on the findings for the lead case.

The Tribunal found that the purchases were non-genuine and directed the Assessing Officer to sustain a Gross Profit of 5% on the alleged purchases. The appeals were decided based on the findings for the lead case.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the virtual hearing mechanism and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the PCIT's revision directions were annulled by a coordinate bench, the subsequent assessment framed in compliance with those directions had no legal basis. Therefore, the impugned assessment was also quashed.

The Tribunal, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three opportunities to plead and prove their case.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C did not clearly establish that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. This failure to demonstrate a correlation between the seized material and the assessment years in question renders the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the contributions were voluntary donations, not membership fees, as evidenced by varying amounts and lack of quid pro quo. The assessee's activities were found to be charitable and not hit by the proviso to Section 2(15).

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C did not clearly establish that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. This failure to demonstrate a correlation between the seized material and the assessment years in question renders the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C did not clearly establish that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. This failure to demonstrate a correlation between the seized material and the assessment years in question renders the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of a legal representative as defined by the Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The appeals were therefore considered premature and lacking merit at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of a legal representative as defined by the Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The appeals were therefore considered premature and lacking merit at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the appellant did not satisfy the conditions of a legal representative as defined by the Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The appeals were therefore considered premature and lacking merit at this stage.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte, the Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the CIT(E) had proceeded ex-parte, the Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the present appeal was found to be a duplicate file. The matter had already been restored to the CIT(A) by a previous order of a co-ordinate bench for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as a duplicate file.

The Tribunal held that interest on loans advanced to AEs, repayable in USD, should be benchmarked using the LIBOR rate plus a margin, not the domestic lending rate. It also remanded the issue of investment verification to the AO and allowed the disallowance of warranty provisions as an ascertained liability.

The Tribunal found that the purchases were non-genuine and directed the Assessing Officer to sustain a Gross Profit of 5% on the alleged purchases. The appeals were decided based on the findings for the lead case.

The Tribunal held that receiving CSR funds for a determined scope of work does not automatically make the activity commercial. The key consideration is the objective for which the contribution is received and applied, which in this case was for educational upliftment and development.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was granted mechanically, as evidenced by a single approval for multiple assessment years and assessees, and without proper application of mind. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated.