ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of holding investments in subsidiary companies, as per its main object, constitutes business activity. Therefore, the claimed business expenses are allowable, and the set-off of business loss against other income is also permissible.

The Tribunal held that if the corresponding sales are not disputed and the profit on those sales is accepted, then the purchases cannot be considered bogus. The AO failed to disprove the bills submitted by the assessee and did not dispute the sales.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's documentary evidence regarding the agricultural nature of the land, relying on the Goetze India Ltd. judgment to reject new claims made without a revised return. The Tribunal found this problematic, set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the AO, and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had successfully furnished identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders and the transactions. The AO's remand report did not contain adverse comments on the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted the additional legal ground regarding the limitation issue. Upon reviewing the sequence of events and applying the ratio of the Supreme Court's decisions, it was found that the notice under Section 148, issued on 21.07.2022, was beyond the maximum time available (23 days, expiring on 24.06.2022). Consequently, the notice was held to be time-barred, and the reassessment order passed pursuant to it was quashed as bad in law, rendering other grounds academic.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services clarified that employee contributions to PF and ESI are exclusively governed by Section 36(1)(va) and must be deposited within the statutory due dates for deduction. Failure to do so results in disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal and Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., the Tribunal noted the Revenue's concession that all reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 issued on or after April 1, 2021, must be dropped as they are time-barred under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Since the Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 was issued on 08.04.2021, it was held to be bad in law, and the consequential assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements of lenders, to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans. Similarly, details of advances against land sales, including confirmations and subsequent sale deeds, were also found to be satisfactory.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the beneficial tax rate under the India-Japan DTAA. It directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax at 10% on the distributed dividends, allowing the refund of excess DDT paid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the beneficial tax rate under the India-Japan DTAA. It directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax at 10% on the distributed dividends, allowing the refund of excess DDT paid.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services clarified that employee contributions to PF and ESI are exclusively governed by Section 36(1)(va) and must be deposited within the statutory due dates for deduction. Failure to do so results in disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that DDA is a local authority and therefore, no TDS was required to be deducted on the ground rent payments made by the assessee. The demands raised by the AO were consequently deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing the reply and that the CIT(A) violated natural justice by not admitting crucial additional evidences. The case is restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with a direction to consider all additional evidences and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, ruling that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical, arbitrary, and without proper application of mind. It noted issues like consolidated approval for multiple years, incorrect search date, and lack of consideration of relevant materials for each year. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings, being vitiated by the invalid approval, were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT correctly exercised his revisionary powers under Section 263. The AO's failure to invoke Section 69C for unexplained expenditure, instead treating it under Section 37(1), was considered an error prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had successfully furnished identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders and the explanation for advances against land sales. The AO's remand report did not contain adverse comments on the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had successfully furnished identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders and the transactions. The AO's remand report did not contain adverse comments on the additional evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the beneficial tax rate under the India-Japan DTAA. It directed the Assessing Officer to charge tax at 10% on the distributed dividends, allowing the refund of excess DDT paid.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to re-compute the ALP for international transactions involving the purchase of finished goods using the Resale Price Method (RPM) as the most appropriate method. Fresh benchmarking was also ordered.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. It was held that the notice issued under Section 153C for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 fell beyond the ten-year block period, rendering the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by taxing the income on a substantive basis when the DRP had directed taxation on a protective basis. Consequently, the final assessment order was deemed void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was invalid due to the failure to provide the assessee with the statement of the alleged entry provider and an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The reassessment proceedings were also questioned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of holding investments in subsidiary companies, as per its main object, constitutes business activity. Therefore, the claimed business expenses are allowable, and the set-off of business loss against other income is also permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The tribunal held that the assessment under section 153A was flawed due to the issuance of a second warrant of authorization. Additions based on evidence from third-party premises should have been made under section 153C, not 153A. Cash found at the assessee's premises was confirmed due to failure to provide a cogent explanation.

The tribunal dismissed grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, issues concerning unexplained money, notional rental income, and capital gains were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal dismissed grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, issues concerning unexplained money, notional rental income, and capital gains were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal dismissed grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, issues concerning unexplained money, notional rental income, and capital gains were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that DDA is a local authority and therefore, no TDS was required to be deducted on the ground rent payments made by the assessee. The demands raised by the AO were consequently deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal determined that the assessment year was an abated assessment year, a point not disputed by the assessee's representative. Consequently, the CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order solely on the basis of a lack of incriminating material, thus allowing Ground 1 of the Revenue's appeal. As the CIT(A) had not addressed the merits of the disallowances, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO for a de novo assessment on these remaining issues (Grounds 2 to 9), which were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) as the income was derived from long-term financing. It also ruled that depreciation on the building was allowable based on beneficial ownership and business use, even without registration. Expenses for promoting Hindi language were also considered business-related.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of LTCG and commission expense. It held that the assessee's gains were genuine, supported by documentary evidence and banking transactions, and followed a coordinate bench decision on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 to revise an assessment order passed under Section 153C if the prior approval under Section 153D was not itself found to be erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. It was held that the notice issued under Section 153C for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 fell beyond the ten-year block period, rendering the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation and therefore the consequential assessment was null and void. Consequently, the PCIT lacked jurisdiction under Section 263 to revise such an invalid assessment order.

The Tribunal found a critical variance between the penalty show-cause notice, which alleged 'under reported income' under Section 274 read with Section 270A, and the final penalty order, which imposed penalty for 'under reporting income in consequence of any misreporting thereof' invoking Section 270A(8). The Tribunal ruled that if proceedings were initiated for a lighter form of violation, penalty could not be levied for an aggravated violation, and the CIT(A) erred by attempting to substitute the charge. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty.