ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination on several issues, including disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA, incorrect demand due to MAT credit and refund adjustments, and interest charged under Section 234A. The AO was directed to verify claims in line with previous orders and circulars.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it did not demonstrate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the consequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee's illiteracy and remote location, coupled with the lack of proper service of the order, justified the delay. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of license fees was pending before the Supreme Court, and the issue of subscriber verification penalty was covered by previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee. The issue of discounts to distributors was also covered by earlier decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of license fees was pending before the Supreme Court, and the issue of subscriber verification penalty was covered by previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee. The issue of discounts to distributors was also covered by earlier decisions.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh examination on several issues, including disallowance of deduction under Section 80-IA, incorrect demand due to MAT credit and refund adjustments, and interest charged under Section 234A. The AO was directed to verify claims in line with previous orders and circulars.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid reasons and that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowances of excess depreciation and lease rent. It was noted that the entire profit of SEZ is deductible under Section 80IAB, making such disallowances academic.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of license fees was pending before the Supreme Court, and the issue of subscriber verification penalty was covered by previous Tribunal decisions in favor of the assessee. The issue of discounts to distributors was also covered by earlier decisions.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective insertion of the Explanation to Section 80IB(9) was unconstitutional, as decided by the Gujarat High Court. Previous decisions in the assessee's own case also supported the allowability of the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the retrospective insertion of the Explanation to Section 80IB(9) was unconstitutional, as decided by the Gujarat High Court. Previous decisions in the assessee's own case also supported the allowability of the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the issue of notional interest on receivables was covered by a previous decision of the coordinate bench, allowing working capital adjustment. For the sales tax subsidy issue, the Tribunal followed its own prior decision and that of the Hon'ble High Court, holding that the subsidy is of a capital nature and not taxable.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from bandwidth services are not taxable as royalty income, following its own consistent decisions and the dismissal of departmental appeals by the High Court.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by admitting additional evidence without confronting the Assessing Officer (AO) and obtaining a remand report. The matter was set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issues afresh. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should have been given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not granting the benefit of the cost of acquisition for the Goa property, as the purchase deed clearly mentioned the consideration. For the other grounds concerning additions to income, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal found the appeal to be not maintainable due to the significant delay and the lack of a condonation application. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to file afresh after rectifying defects and explaining the delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as it was passed in violation of Section 144C of the Act. The Tribunal quashed the order due to the non-issuance of a draft assessment order when a prejudicial variation was proposed.

The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority's order was passed ex parte. In the interest of substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte and had not decided the issue on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merit after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2011-12 was beyond the ten-year block period as provided under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare (P.) Ltd. The reasoning was that the first proviso to Section 153C shifts the relevant date for reckoning the block period from the date of initiation of search or requisition to the date of receipt of books of account, documents, or assets seized by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer of the non-searched person. In this case, the notice u/s 153C was issued on 29.08.2022. Following Ojjus Medicare, the ten-year block period would commence from the AY relevant to the previous year in which the satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the assessee, which was 08.08.2022. Counting backward ten assessment years from AY 2023-24 (relevant to FY 2022-23), the period ends at AY 2014-15. Therefore, AY 2011-12 falls outside this block period. The assessment order dated 06.03.2024 passed u/s 153C for AY 2011-12 was annulled as it was beyond the period of 10 years. The Tribunal found the assessment to be beyond the period for considering block years and thus struck down. The operative direction was to allow the appeal of the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the addition was sustained ex-parte by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, directed the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had declared the investment in the foreign assets in the return of income and provided details of bank accounts, indicating sufficient source of income. Regarding foreign tax credit, the Tribunal noted that Form 67 was filed within the extended time limit and directed the AO to allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay.

The Tribunal held that in the freight forwarding business, only the net service charges constitute the assessee's real income, not the gross amount collected which includes amounts to be remitted to third parties. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules is mandatory and must be followed, or the assessee must be handicapped in filing evidence before the AO. The NFAC should have provided an opportunity to the AO to rebut the assessee's claim that evidence was refused.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for AY 2015-16 was barred by time, referring to the Supreme Court decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra). The benefit of TOLA 2020 was also found not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of seized cash and jewellery, bogus purchases, disallowed expenses, and transfer pricing adjustments were unsustainable. The Tribunal found that payments for purchases were made through banking channels and TDS was deducted, and that transfer pricing was incorrectly handled.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was not justified as the assessee was incorporated recently and could not have commenced activities. The issue of registration was restored to the file of CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, agreeing with their findings after carefully considering the facts and law. The Tribunal emphasized that law aids vigilant litigants and the assessee had not provided any submissions or evidence to defend its case.

The Tribunal held that the royalty income received by the assessee is not taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the Indo-USA Tax Treaty. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for multiple assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was not justified as the assessee was incorporated recently and could not have commenced activities. The issue of registration was restored to the file of CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's circumstances and admitted them for hearing. Considering the lack of contest before the lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay.

The Tribunal held that the royalty income received by the assessee is not taxable in India under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and Article 12 of the Indo-USA Tax Treaty. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for multiple assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot travel beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority as per CBDT instructions. Since this procedure was not followed, the additions made by the AO are quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned reopening was not sustainable in law because the assessee had already passed away before the notice under Section 148 was issued. The appeal was allowed on this basis.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the Ld. CIT(A), finding that the assessee's explanations for the cash deposits, including sales of paintings, ancestral jewellery, and gifts received for his son's engagement, were supported by evidence and logical. The grounds raised by the Revenue were found to lack substance.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 65,19,810 on account of sundry debtors. It noted that the assessee's trade receivable balance as of March 31, 2015, was 'Nil' and followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case where such additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since both sales and purchases were bogus, the assessee had already declared a Gross Profit (GP) of 17.08% on these transactions. To penalize the assessee for obtaining such entries, the disallowance was restricted to 5% of the gross sales.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were unsustainable in law because a common approval under Section 153D of the Act was granted for multiple cases, rendering the consequential assessments a nullity. Therefore, all impugned assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims with documentary evidence before the lower authorities, including during remand proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of documents and decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction for the Rs. 50,00,000/- cash credit. The AO and CIT(A)'s orders were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay.