ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for a fresh decision. This was done in the interest of substantial justice to afford the assessee a fair opportunity of hearing, given the factual dispute regarding submission of documents.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim of no such transactions and delete additions if no entries are found. For AY 2016-17, the assessment was quashed due to improper sanction for reopening beyond three years.

For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim of no such transactions and delete additions if no entries are found. For AY 2016-17, the assessment was quashed due to improper sanction for reopening beyond three years.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the Section 54 deduction. It confirmed that a registered sale deed is not mandatory, a flat buyer agreement is sufficient, payments through a verifiable third party are permissible, and the builder's accounting treatment is irrelevant to the assessee's claim. The Tribunal noted that the project was under construction, and substantial payments were made within the stipulated period.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell, held that additions for unabated assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19) under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Assessing Officer failed to establish any such incriminating material, and the additions for 2018-19 and 2019-20 were merely consequential, all these additions were deemed unsustainable.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the TPO had not complied with the DRP's directions to provide a speaking order with detailed reasons for the comparables used in the transfer pricing analysis. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Transfer Pricing Officer for reconsideration and to pass a speaking order in strict compliance with the DRP's earlier directions.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition under Section 56(2)(viia) was within the scope of limited scrutiny. However, an addition of Rs. 98,56,165/- on account of sundry debtors was found unsustainable and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty was rightly made by the assessee as it represented a present obligation arising from past events, with a reliable estimate of the obligation and potential outflow of resources. The disallowance by the tax authorities was considered an error.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell, held that additions for unabated assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19) under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Assessing Officer failed to establish any such incriminating material, and the additions for 2018-19 and 2019-20 were merely consequential, all these additions were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal, admitting the legal grounds, held that given the undated satisfaction notes, the date of issuance of the Section 153C notice (10.05.2023) should be considered for determining the block of six assessment years. This resulted in the relevant block being Assessment Year 2024-25 to 2018-19, placing Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18 outside the permissible period. Consequently, the assessments for these years were quashed as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal, admitting the legal grounds, held that given the undated satisfaction notes, the date of issuance of the Section 153C notice (10.05.2023) should be considered for determining the block of six assessment years. This resulted in the relevant block being Assessment Year 2024-25 to 2018-19, placing Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18 outside the permissible period. Consequently, the assessments for these years were quashed as barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years were invalid if the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakh. The Assessing Officer failed to verify the facts and proceeded with reopening despite the assessee's explanation and evidence.

The Tribunal noted that after the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment, the AO passed fresh assessment orders without making any additions or disallowances to the prejudice of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that after the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment, the AO passed fresh assessment orders without making any additions or disallowances to the prejudice of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that after the Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment, the AO passed fresh assessment orders without making any additions or disallowances to the prejudice of the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and its order was not in consonance with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the lower authorities had not considered the benefit of CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2017 regarding cash deposits during demonetization.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, and the lower authorities had not brought any adverse material to counter these evidences, relying solely on third-party information. The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order, penalty proceeding, and the CIT(A) order were all completed ex-parte. Since there was no finding on merit by the lower authorities and the assessee appeared interested in pursuing the case, the Tribunal restored the matter to the assessing officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed hastily within two months, and the assessee's contention regarding the lack of reasonable opportunity to explain the additions was valid. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the entire matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard is provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell, held that additions for unabated assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19) under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Assessing Officer failed to establish any such incriminating material, and the additions for 2018-19 and 2019-20 were merely consequential, all these additions were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell, held that additions for unabated assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19) under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Assessing Officer failed to establish any such incriminating material, and the additions for 2018-19 and 2019-20 were merely consequential, all these additions were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell, held that additions for unabated assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19) under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Assessing Officer failed to establish any such incriminating material, and the additions for 2018-19 and 2019-20 were merely consequential, all these additions were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were barred by limitation, as the notice issued was beyond the prescribed period. This was supported by decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Abhishar Buildwell, held that additions for unabated assessment years (2014-15 to 2018-19) under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. As the Assessing Officer failed to establish any such incriminating material, and the additions for 2018-19 and 2019-20 were merely consequential, all these additions were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal, referencing precedents from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and co-ordinate benches, ruled that the requirement of filing Form 10CCB along with the return of income is directory, not mandatory. It concluded that since the audit report was submitted before the assessment was framed, the assessee should not be denied the Section 80IA deduction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and directed the AO to remove the disallowance.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed before the Delhi Benches as not maintainable. Liberty was granted to the assessee to file a fresh appeal before the Indore Bench, with the limitation period to be reckoned from the date of service of the order.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- was unsustainable as no cash was found with the assessee, and the addition was based solely on seized ledgers without further corroborating evidence. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case.

The ITAT observed that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without considering the assessee's replies, and the CIT(A) also did not adjudicate the appeal on merits after providing proper opportunities. Consequently, the ITAT restored the entire issue to the file of the AO for a de-novo assessment, directing the AO to duly consider the assessee's replies and afford a fresh opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT found that while the interest certificate was dated after the AO's order, it was presented to the PCIT along with other loan documents establishing the transfer of a prior loan to the property in question. Despite a minor mismatch in the interest amount, the Tribunal concluded that finding fault for a document not submitted earlier, when it was subsequently available, would be an academic exercise. Therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met, and there was no reason to sustain the PCIT's order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not present significant facts before the lower authorities. However, considering the alternative submission that the payee would have offered the income in its return, and the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, the matter was remanded to the AO.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for donations are unsustainable. However, the party is not entitled to Section 13A benefits due to non-compliance. The AO is directed to treat 6% of total donations as 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for adjudication. The Tribunal found that the first appellate order was non-speaking on factual issues and that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS credit to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee was given liberty to furnish requisite documents, and the AO was directed to allow TDS credit in accordance with law after considering the evidence.

The Tribunal found that there was no proper fact-finding at the lower levels (AO and CIT(A)) and that the assessee was denied an opportunity for proper examination. New evidence was also submitted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition for short-term capital gains and the restriction of the addition for unexplained investment. The Tribunal agreed that there was no incriminating material to support the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not properly verify the transaction with the estranged husband, and the CIT(A) also failed to deal with the facts appropriately. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 01.04.2021, which was after the introduction of the new procedure under the Finance Act, 2021. Since this procedure was not followed by the AO, the assessment order deserved to be struck down.

The Tribunal held that the software used for high-frequency trading, integral to the business, qualifies for 60% depreciation. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Madras High Court and ITAT decisions, the Tribunal found the software to be part of the computer system and not merely an intangible asset.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence. The AO failed to bring independent material to rebut the assessee's evidence, relying only on third-party statements without cross-examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on CCDs denominated in Indian currency should be benchmarked using domestic prime lending rates (PLR) and not LIBOR. The adjustment made by the AO/TPO was therefore considered unjustified.

The Tribunal observed that communication gaps might have prevented the assessee from effectively presenting their case, and there was a lack of proper adjudication as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given an opportunity to furnish documentary evidence. The impugned ex-parte order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.