ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond the prescribed period of three years without obtaining the necessary approval from the specified authority as per Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The ITAT noted that communication gaps could arise in the faceless hearing system, especially when proceedings are ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the ITAT restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the taxpayer with three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case.

The tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the merits of the Section 80G claim. Consequently, the tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh, independent adjudication and verification of whether the donations were made to an approved trust or institution, providing the assessee three opportunities to present its case.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment. Additions under Section 14A were also upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment. Additions under Section 14A were also upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment. Additions under Section 14A were also upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessment. Additions under Section 14A were also upheld as per the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 were not covered by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and were therefore time-barred. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings lacked valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal observed that a statutory reference to the DVO under Section 50C(2) of the Act is mandatory, as established by the Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Cal.) judgment. Consequently, the tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, with directions to make an appropriate reference to the DVO.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's corresponding business sales were not disputed, and books of accounts were not rejected. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to a lump sum of 5% of the impugned bogus purchases, specifying that this decision should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.

The tribunal held that there was no merit in the assessee's appeal. Since the CIT(A)/NFAC had only exercised its 'remand' jurisdiction to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer, and the underlying assessment was framed under Section 144, there was no justifiable ground for the assessee's appeal before the tribunal. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, disallowance of expenses unsupported by bills, and addition on account of notional income. The outcome varied for different assessment years and grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO, having accepted the assessee's books of accounts, could not arbitrarily discard a part of the trading account (cash sales). The addition was made without concrete evidence that the cash deposited was other than cash in hand from sales, and therefore, the addition was illegal.

The Tribunal held that the reference to the TPO and the subsequent assessment order were made beyond the permissible time limits. Relying on a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the proceedings to be invalid and barred by limitation.

Citing the Supreme Court judgment in *Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others*, the Tribunal ruled that technical aspects should give way to substantial justice. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to restore the assessee's appeal for fresh adjudication, providing three effective opportunities, on the condition that the assessee proves their case at their own risk and responsibility.

The tribunal, relying on the case law Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy vs. PCIT (2024) 460 ITR 615(Mad.), held that the compliance requirement for filing Form 67 is only directory in nature, not mandatory. Therefore, the tribunal found merit in the assessee's appeal and directed the assessing authority to grant the foreign tax credit benefit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 378 days, finding no mala fide intent and noting that the appellant did not gain by not filing the appeal within the limitation period. The ex parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh decision.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of documentary evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

While acknowledging the assessee's declared salary income and the possibility of past savings, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to fully prove the source of the cash deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a lump sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for each assessment year to cover the deficiencies, clarifying that this estimation should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that rectification under Section 154 is not permissible when the Assessing Officer had already duly considered the ESI/PF issue during the regular assessment under Section 143(3). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros., the Tribunal reversed the impugned rectification order.

The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent for future cases.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, expenses unsupported by bills, and notional income. For some assessment years, the appeals were partly allowed, while for others, they were dismissed or allowed based on the specific grounds.

The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the ITAT in a previous order, the consequential penalty order and the appellate order confirming it are set aside.

While acknowledging the assessee's declared salary income and the possibility of past savings, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to fully prove the source of the cash deposits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restricted the addition to a lump sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for each assessment year to cover the deficiencies, clarifying that this estimation should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee as a salaried employee and that past accumulated savings with self and family could not be entirely ruled out. It deemed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be just and proper, thereby granting the assessee a relief of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions conducted on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.

The Tribunal held that the deemed dividend addition could not be invoked because the assessee's company, M/s Skyline Constructions, had accumulated losses of Rs.2,96,342/- as of 13.11.2016. Since the company lacked accumulated profits, the deeming fiction of dividends under Section 2(22)(e) was inapplicable, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps as the CIT(A) had proceeded ex-parte. In the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition for unexplained cash deposits to Rs.8,00,000/-, considering the assessee's socio-economic status and possibility of past cash savings. It was also held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the proper sanction from the specified authority as per the amended Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ESI/PF contribution under Section 143(1) was incorrect as the issue was highly debatable at the time of processing. The Assessing Officer should have resorted to Section 143(3) for such debatable issues.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee, either through postal mail or email. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities failed to discuss segmental GP or comparable instances while assessing the assessee at a 5% GP rate. Considering the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed a lump sum assessment of the assessee's GP at 1.5% to be just and proper for the given facts, with the rider that this specific assessment should not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

The tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid and quashed them. It found that the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition pertaining to the specific reason for which the assessment was reopened, rendering the reopening unsustainable in law, supported by judicial precedents.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition for bogus purchases to 6% of the alleged bogus amount, which equated to Rs.4,85,467/-. The Tribunal noted that while the purchases were questionable and intended to suppress profit, the sales were made through banking channels, and the assessee's prior profit percentages were low, justifying an estimated profit addition rather than the full amount under Section 69C.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee, either through postal mail or email. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's business and that its corresponding sales were not questioned, partly allowed the appeal. It directed a lump sum disallowance of 5% of the disputed bogus purchases, explicitly stating this resolution should not be considered a precedent.

The Tribunal acknowledged the communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act by the lower appellate authority. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee three effective opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A)/NFAC had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. While the revenue argued that the assessee provided no explanation or evidence, the Tribunal considered that communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor, and counsel could not be ruled out, especially when the lower appellate authority also proceeded ex-parte. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would be given three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case at their own risk. The assessee's quantum appeal (ITA No.4062/2025) was accepted for statistical purposes, and the same order was to follow for the consequential penalty appeal (ITA No.4061/2025). No specific issue was left undecided, but the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

During the hearing, the assessee's Authorized Representative requested to withdraw all the pending appeals and submitted a letter to that effect. The Tribunal acceded to the request, permitted the withdrawal, and consequently dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

During the hearing, the assessee's Authorized Representative requested to withdraw all the pending appeals and submitted a letter to that effect. The Tribunal acceded to the request, permitted the withdrawal, and consequently dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal decided various issues including disallowance of interest expenses, disallowance of expenses unsupported by bills, and addition on account of notional income. The Tribunal restored some issues to the AO for verification and allowed others based on the facts and legal precedents.

The Tribunal allowed a lump sum Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 5% on the cash deposits, considering the nature of the assessee's business in an unorganized sector. It further held that Section 115BBE is applicable only for transactions done on or after April 1, 2017, and directed the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions for the impugned period.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing complete details of creditors, including identity and purpose of credit. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without further investigation or seeking a remand report.

The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated after the assessee's demise are not sustainable in law. Citing the precedent of Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening.