ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that proceedings conducted against a deceased assessee without proper legal representation or notice are unsustainable in the eyes of law. The CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the assessee's death and proceeded ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple cases granted on the same day. Therefore, the assessment order was vitiated and quashed.

The Tribunal deleted the addition made on account of sundry creditors, finding the assessee's explanation to be plausible. Regarding the addition for cash deposits, the Tribunal partly allowed the ground, making a lump-sum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that prior to the insertion of Section 115BBE, deemed income under Section 68 was allowed to be set off against business losses. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was not to be interfered with, but the assessee should be allowed to set off unabsorbed depreciation against this addition.

The Tribunal held that based on a recent co-ordinate bench decision and the legislative amendment to Section 153C vide Finance Act, 2015, a satisfaction recorded under Section 153C cannot treat books of account or documents as belonging to a third person after the amendment. Therefore, the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation, rendering the assessment order void. For the other assessment years, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a second chance to present facts.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that while the purchases were bogus, a full disallowance was not warranted. Following judicial precedents, the addition was restricted to a percentage of the bogus purchases, reflecting the profit element.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues of legality of reopening and the merits of the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issues of legality of reopening and the merits of the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the appeals and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation, rendering the assessment order void. For the other assessment years, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a second chance to present facts.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee attempted to prove the source of cash deposits, the explanation was not fully corroborated by cogent evidence. However, the Revenue's endeavor to disbelieve the assessee was also not fully justified. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lump-sum addition of Rs. 8 lakh in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the matter required a denovo assessment in the interest of justice. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The tribunal upheld the additions made under section 153A and section 68 read with section 115BBE, finding no merit in the assessee's challenges. However, the disallowance of house property loss was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly granted relief to the assessee by giving the benefit of the order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement. The receipts in question were already considered and dealt with by the Settlement Commission.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly granted relief to the assessee by giving the benefit of the order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement. The receipts in question were already considered and dealt with by the Settlement Commission.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on 22.07.2022, was time-barred as per the Supreme Court's decision in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a routine distributor assuming routine risks and that RPM is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the import of finished goods. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO was set aside.

The tribunal upheld the additions made under section 153A and section 68 read with section 115BBE, finding no merit in the assessee's challenges. However, the disallowance of house property loss was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit for both assessment years. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit, condoning the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit for both assessment years. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit, condoning the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) was beyond the four-year limitation period as established by the Delhi High Court in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation. Therefore, the order passed was invalid and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a proper explanation for the source of the cash deposits, which were previously withdrawn for a specific purpose that did not materialize. Therefore, these withdrawals acted as a valid cash source to explain the subsequent deposits.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was improper. The satisfaction note did not explicitly clarify whether the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was improper. The satisfaction note did not explicitly clarify whether the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was improper. The satisfaction note did not explicitly clarify whether the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee, which is a mandatory requirement.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee made some compliances, the documentation provided to the AO was insufficient, leading to an adverse view. Considering the interests of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another chance.

The Tribunal held that the guarantee fee income is taxable in India. However, it remitted the issue of whether it constitutes business income back to the Assessing Officer. Pending that determination, and following the principle of consistency with prior years, the income was taxed at 10%, and the assessee was allowed credit for TDS.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were a double addition as the cash sales and deposits were already offered for taxation by the assessee and were supported by contemporaneous documentation. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account.

The Tribunal held that the testing services did not qualify as royalty as no intangible property was used or made available. Similarly, the IT support services were not taxable as FTS because the 'make available' clause of the DTAA was not satisfied.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issue without appreciating facts and evidence, prioritizing technicalities over substantive justice. The matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were wrongly filed before the Delhi Bench due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but granted the assessee liberty to file them before the correct jurisdictional Bench.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were wrongly filed before the Delhi Bench due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but granted the assessee liberty to file them before the correct jurisdictional Bench.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were wrongly filed before the Delhi Bench due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but granted the assessee liberty to file them before the correct jurisdictional Bench.

The Tribunal held that to avoid miscarriage of justice, the matter needed to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was to be granted an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were wrongly filed before the Delhi Bench due to a lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals but granted the assessee liberty to file them before the correct jurisdictional Bench.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an opportunity of being heard and to submit evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an opportunity of being heard and to submit evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the appeal was challenging an ex-parte order due to a lack of proper notice. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the order was passed ex parte. Considering the denial of opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the circumstances beyond the assessee's control, the genuine hardship faced, and in light of pronouncements by the Supreme Court on liberal approach for condonation of delay, condoned the delay. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee. The Tribunal further set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the principle of taxing real income and misinterpreted the Goetze (India) Limited decision. It was held that if there was a reporting error and no remedy before the AO, the appellate authority has jurisdiction to entertain the additional claim.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 of the Act, served via email on 01.04.2021 at 7:06 AM, was indeed time-barred. Consequently, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law because the issues raised by the PCIT were already under appeal before the CIT(A) and had not yet been decided. The Tribunal also noted that the PCIT was silent on the issue of bogus sales.

The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were bad in law because the issues raised by the PCIT were already under appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the PCIT were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders for both assessment years were passed beyond the time limit stipulated in Section 144C(13) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim the cost of acquisition from previous owners and the period of holding should be reckoned from the date of purchase by the previous owner, allowing for indexation benefits and fair market value as on 1.4.1981. The conditions for demerger under Section 2(19AA) were satisfied.

The Tribunal held that since the return was filed belatedly and considered invalid, the requirement for issuing a notice u/s 143(2) did not arise. However, the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds on merits and the assessment order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal restored the issues of unsecured loans and notional interest to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit necessary documents to prove creditworthiness and the source of advances. The AO was directed to verify these details and pass an order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, quashing the assessment order due to the absence of digital or manual signatures on the notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.