ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

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 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 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 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 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'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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 determined that merely a proposal from the Technical Unit to seek information from Singapore tax authorities does not constitute a formal reference by the competent authority (Joint Secretary, FT & TR-II). Without actual evidence of such a formal reference being made, the period of limitation for completing the assessment is not extended as per Explanation 1 clause (x) to Section 153 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the assessment completed on 28-3-2023 was held to be barred by limitation, and the CITA's decision to quash it was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matters were directed to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A) on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to factual discrepancies regarding the ownership of the bank account where the cash was deposited. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matters were directed to be adjudicated afresh by the CIT(A) on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) due to factual discrepancies regarding the ownership of the bank account where the cash was deposited. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Given that the correct appeal is already listed before the Jodhpur Bench, the present appeal filed before the Delhi Bench is deemed a duplicate and is therefore dismissed. The assessee is directed to pursue the original appeal filed before the Jodhpur Bench for the relevant Assessment Year.

The Tribunal upheld the procedural validity of the reassessment proceedings and the assessment framed under Sections 144/147, noting the assessee's non-compliance. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to accept the source of cash deposits only to the extent supported by documented sale consideration (Rs.60,57,000/-). The Tribunal found that self-serving affidavits without corroborative evidence were insufficient to discharge the assessee's onus to explain the remaining unexplained cash deposits of Rs.1,37,59,581/-.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2015-16 under Section 153C was barred by limitation and beyond the AO's jurisdiction. This was based on the principle that the satisfaction note must demonstrate a nexus with the specific assessment year, and the relevant period for Section 153C proceedings was not met.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on the Delhi High Court's landmark judgment in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101, which established that the ten-year limitation period for Section 153C assessments is counted from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of the search, and also upheld the applicability of the pecuniary limit for income escaping assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the protective addition in the assessee's hands. It reiterated the well-settled legal principle that when a substantive addition, on which a protective addition is based (in this case, in the hands of Mr. Ram Narayan Bajaj), is quashed by the Tribunal, the protective addition also cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on the Delhi High Court's landmark judgment in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101, which established that the ten-year limitation period for Section 153C assessments is counted from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of the search, and also upheld the applicability of the pecuniary limit for income escaping assessment.

The Tribunal held that the onus to prove the existence of a PE in India lies with the Assessing Officer. The AO failed to provide reasons or identify a specific PE, merely making a bald observation under Article 5 of the India-UK DTAA. Citing established jurisprudence (Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd.), the Tribunal ruled that offshore supply transactions, where transfer of ownership and payments occur outside India, are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. It relied on the Delhi High Court's landmark judgment in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 465 ITR 101, which established that the ten-year limitation period for Section 153C assessments is counted from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year of the search, and also upheld the applicability of the pecuniary limit for income escaping assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding transfer pricing adjustments for export of ferrous, finding no infirmity in the methodology adopted. The CIT(A) had rightly directed the TPO to consider amended contracts and restricted the adjustment based on comparable uncontrolled prices.

The Tribunal held that mere uploading of notices on the e-filing portal, without effective service or direct communication (like email/SMS alerts) to the assessee, does not constitute sufficient service and can lead to a violation of natural justice. Citing a binding precedent from the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Tribunal found that the assessee's lack of actual knowledge regarding the notices amounted to a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was set aside and deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It confirmed that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments, as per Section 153A(1) Explanation-I, is counted 'from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted,' and AY 2012-13 fell outside this period. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the DRP violated principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing before raising a new issue. Furthermore, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal ruled that income from software licenses and related maintenance/training services is not taxable as royalty or FTS in India.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid due to multiple procedural lapses. These included discrepancies in the reasons provided, violation of natural justice by passing an order before the compliance date, and obtaining approval from an inappropriate authority.

The ITAT observed that the addition was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the Assessing Officer's order. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to be heard on merit. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with directions to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue on merit as per law.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as it was passed without complying with mandatory CBDT instructions for converting a limited scrutiny case to a full scrutiny case. Therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and relying on CBDT Circular No. 320 dated 11-01-1982, held that Section 167A is not attracted in cases of charitable trusts where members or trustees are not entitled to shares in the income of the AOP. Therefore, tax should be levied at the normal slab rates applicable to an AOP, not at the Maximum Marginal Rate.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal and other High Court and ITAT judgments. The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the 'surviving time limit' as per the established legal precedents.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Ld. PCIT lacked jurisdiction to initiate revisional proceedings under Section 263 when the subject matter of the assessment order was already pending in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that Explanation 1(c) to Section 263(1) restricts the PCIT's power in such scenarios, and found that the PCIT had misread the law. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the PCIT's order under Section 263 for erroneously assuming jurisdiction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal and other High Court and ITAT judgments. The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the 'surviving time limit' as per the established legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed by an officer without proper jurisdiction, violating CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C did not meet the statutory threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs for escaped income. Therefore, the assessments were invalid.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot solely form the basis for an addition without corroborative material. Retracted statements, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to sustain additions.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot solely form the basis for an addition without corroborative material. Retracted statements, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to sustain additions.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot solely form the basis for an addition without corroborative material. Retracted statements, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to sustain additions.