ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and decided that restoring the appeals to the PCIT(A) for fresh adjudication would be in the larger interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and decided that restoring the appeals to the PCIT(A) for fresh adjudication would be in the larger interest of justice.

The tribunal held that the Delhi Benches lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench.

The Tribunal held that the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer, which is in Mumbai, determines the territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the Delhi benches of the Tribunal do not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid. Consequently, the addition made on merits under Section 69 was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, an NRI, had provided bank statements and transaction details to the CIT(A) to explain the source of investments from funds remitted from Oman. However, the AO's remand report indicated the source from Oman remained unexplained.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding a donation that was allegedly added back twice and also to verify the late deposit of employee contributions to PF & ESI. If the assessee's contentions are found correct, the respective additions are to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that once it's established the assessee is an accommodation entry provider, only commission income should be taxed. Additions for unexplained credits under Section 68 were deleted as they were part of accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that Corporate IT recharges are in the nature of reimbursement and not taxable as Royalty or Fee for Included Services (FIS). This issue was consistently decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment years, and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that once it's established the assessee provides accommodation entries, only commission income should be taxed, not the entire credit entries as unexplained income. Additions for commission on debit entries were also deleted.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately justified the addition of 2% commission on bank debits and credits. While upholding the reassessment, the Tribunal reduced the addition to 1% of the accommodation entries, stating it would not be a precedent.

The Tribunal held that once it's established the assessee is an accommodation entry provider, only commission income should be taxed. Additions for unexplained credits under Section 68 were deleted as they were part of accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the income from supervisory services should be determined based on the audited books of account, and since the audited books showed a loss, no income was taxable for that activity. The chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also addressed.

The Tribunal held that once it's established the assessee is an accommodation entry provider, only commission income should be taxed. Additions for unexplained credits under Section 68 were deleted as they were part of accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the income from supervisory services should be determined based on the audited books of account, and since the audited books showed a loss, no income was taxable for that activity. The chargeability of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also addressed.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments, held that for AY 2015-16, all Section 148 notices issued on or after April 01, 2021, are time-barred as they do not fall for completion within the period prescribed under TOLA. Consequently, the reassessment order passed pursuant to such a time-barred notice was declared bad in law and quashed.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee is established as an accommodation entry provider, only commission income should be taxed. Additions for unexplained credits under Section 68 and commission on debit entries were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that no addition was made under Section 143(3) of the Act and the order under Section 143(1) was accepted by the assessee. The assessee failed to demonstrate any grievance against the impugned order.

The Tribunal, noting that the case law in Puri Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT had settled the issue against the assessee, held that the payment of external development charges indeed attracted TDS deduction. Consequently, the lower authorities' findings treating the assessee in default under Section 201(1) were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,33,460/- for purchases from M/s. Canon Fasteners was wrongly made as the inquiry was conducted at the wrong address. For purchases from the Sanjay Jain group, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 11% (for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) and 12.5% (for AY 2018-19) on the bogus purchases, reduced by the profit already declared.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,33,460/- for purchases from M/s. Canon Fasteners was wrongly made as the inquiry was conducted at the wrong address. For purchases from the Sanjay Jain group, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 11% (for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) and 12.5% (for AY 2018-19) on the bogus purchases, reduced by the profit already declared.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already set aside the quantum addition and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the present appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) to avoid multiplicity of decisions and ensure proper consideration of the grounds raised.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed period. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,33,460/- for purchases from M/s. Canon Fasteners was wrongly made as the inquiry was conducted at the wrong address. For purchases from the Sanjay Jain group, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 11% (for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) and 12.5% (for AY 2018-19) on the bogus purchases, reduced by the profit already declared.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is statutorily required to adjudicate on merits. The impugned order was found unsustainable. The case was restored to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,33,460/- for purchases from M/s. Canon Fasteners was wrongly made as the inquiry was conducted at the wrong address. For purchases from the Sanjay Jain group, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 11% (for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) and 12.5% (for AY 2018-19) on the bogus purchases, reduced by the profit already declared.

The Tribunal found that the mismatch was solely due to the difference in the year of recognition of profit/receipts between the assessee and the TDS deductor. The reasons provided by the assessee were deemed plausible.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,33,460/- for purchases from M/s. Canon Fasteners was wrongly made as the inquiry was conducted at the wrong address. For purchases from the Sanjay Jain group, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 11% (for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) and 12.5% (for AY 2018-19) on the bogus purchases, reduced by the profit already declared.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, which violates the principles of natural justice. The dismissal ex parte resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the Assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law as there was no tangible material pertaining to the assessee considered by the lower authorities. The impugned reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable when the source of deposits is not doubted and TDS has been deducted on the interest income. The addition of interest income under Section 69A was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that technical aspects should not stand in the way of substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee must plead and prove the case at their own risk.

The Tribunal held that the section 148A proceedings were invalid because the notice issued to the assessee provided less than the statutory seven days for a reply. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the approval of the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. This rendered the notice bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,33,460/- for purchases from M/s. Canon Fasteners was wrongly made as the inquiry was conducted at the wrong address. For purchases from the Sanjay Jain group, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply a profit rate of 11% (for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21) and 12.5% (for AY 2018-19) on the bogus purchases, reduced by the profit already declared.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's grounds related to disallowance of ESI/PF claim on account of late payment, citing the decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also noted that the alleged disallowance of section 80JJAA deduction was not substantiated in the assessment or appellate orders. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the approval of the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. This rendered the notice bad in law.

The Tribunal found no merits in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessment year was beyond the six-year block period as per Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization. It also directed the AO to re-compute the trading addition by applying a 6% profit rate on the gross turnover, considering it would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. The common approval granted for multiple assessment years was found to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the approval under section 153D of the Act must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. The common approval granted for multiple assessment years was found to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed ex parte without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that notices were issued but there was no evidence of service or effective representation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) was illegal as the Assessing Officer failed to record the mandatory 'satisfaction'. Consequently, the addition made under Section 14A for normal provisions and the corresponding addition under Section 115JB were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable when the source of expenditure is unexplained, not when the expenditure itself is found to be non-genuine. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue for not invoking Section 69C and Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to file the required details before the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(E).