ITAT Delhi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal found contradictions in the AO's reasons for reopening, specifically regarding whether the assessee had filed a return. It also noted a lack of independent analysis of the AIR data and a missing 'live link' between the material and the belief of escaped income. The reopening was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. A mechanical approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. A mechanical approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that since the amount was debited to retained earnings and not to the Profit and Loss Account, and no deduction was claimed in the return of income, the disallowance made by the CPC was incorrect and deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. A mechanical approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the fees received for satellite transmission services do not fall within the definition of royalty under Article 12 of the India-Hong Kong DTAA. Provisions of the DTAA, being more beneficial, override the domestic law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the consequential benefit of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, in respect of disallowance/addition made by the AO. This decision was based on the principles established by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar cases, which held that statutory disallowances enhance the profits eligible for Section 10A deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation. The Tribunal found no change in circumstances from prior assessment years where similar disallowances were not made, and the CIT(A) had already ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation. The Tribunal found no change in circumstances from prior assessment years where similar disallowances were not made, and the CIT(A) had already ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under Section 153C cannot be initiated for an unabated assessment year without incriminating material pertaining to that year. A consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the entire assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation. The Tribunal found no change in circumstances from prior assessment years where similar disallowances were not made, and the CIT(A) had already ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation. The Tribunal found no change in circumstances from prior assessment years where similar disallowances were not made, and the CIT(A) had already ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy was given to encourage entrepreneurs to set up projects, not to meet the cost of assets. Therefore, the cost of assets should not be reduced by the subsidy amount for depreciation purposes.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. A mechanical approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently established the creditworthiness of her husband, Shri Mewa Singh Sangwan, from whose bank accounts the capital contribution was transferred. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable. This was because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was ambiguous, failing to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer in the show cause notice, rendering the entire penalty proceedings vitiated and bad in law, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the fees received for satellite transmission services do not fall within the definition of royalty under Article 12 of the India-Hong Kong DTAA. Provisions of the DTAA, being more beneficial, override the domestic law.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for procedural defects. For the Revenue's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the Assessing Officer's findings regarding bogus purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of depreciation. The Tribunal found no change in circumstances from prior assessment years where similar disallowances were not made, and the CIT(A) had already ruled in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for procedural defects. For the Revenue's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the Assessing Officer's findings regarding bogus purchases.

The tribunal condoned the 111-day delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's illiteracy. Finding that both the original assessment (under Section 144 read with Section 147) and the CIT(A) proceedings were ex-parte due to notices being sent to an incorrect address, the tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to conduct a fresh examination and de-novo assessment after providing the assessee with proper opportunity.

The ITAT confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A), noting that the AO failed to pinpoint how the share price was rigged to benefit the assessee and did not provide evidence of a collusive arrangement. The assessee had been invested in YICL for a considerable period since 2011, and no SEBI investigation against YICL or its brokers was indicated. The ITAT emphasized that the allegation against Dutta & Tyagi Group was a starting point, not a conclusion, and found the specific transaction not to be in doubt.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the unsecured loan and that the AO had not properly appreciated the creditworthiness of the lender. Regarding the profit estimation, the Tribunal found that the assessee's books of accounts were reliable and the GP rate applied by the AO was not justified, especially given the significant increase in turnover.

The ITAT, relying on prior decisions by coordinate benches and the Madras High Court, held that the late fee under Section 234E is not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A(1)(c), which enables such levy, was introduced with effect from that date. Consequently, the impugned orders sustaining the late fees and interest for the assessment years in question were set aside.

The ITAT, relying on prior decisions by coordinate benches and the Madras High Court, held that the late fee under Section 234E is not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as Section 200A(1)(c), which enables such levy, was introduced with effect from that date. Consequently, the impugned orders sustaining the late fees and interest for the assessment years in question were set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for procedural defects. For the Revenue's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the Assessing Officer's findings regarding bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to obtain prior approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required for notices issued beyond three years. Instead, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice is also void.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. A mechanical approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for procedural defects. For the Revenue's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the Assessing Officer's findings regarding bogus purchases.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT (Exemptions), observing that the assessee was denied registration because complete details were allegedly not filed, but also noting that some details were furnished. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the source of funds for investments, and the AO's additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) had drawn conclusions without sufficient evidence. While the assessee's compliance was wanting, the AO's estimations were on the higher side. The Tribunal decided to restrict the disallowances to 50% of the amounts.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the factory building, being a depreciable asset, should be treated under Section 50 of the Act, supporting the AO's view. However, the claim of the remaining land as agricultural land requires further examination by the AO in light of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the source of funds for the investment, and the AO had not doubted the credibility of the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the basis of addition in the assessment order was at variance with the information provided during the reopening process, which is a valid ground for setting aside the notice and order. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had successfully proved the identity and genuineness of the commission payment to the sub-agent with the additional evidence filed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of protective additions, noting that the substantive additions in the related company's case were set aside due to invalid approval under Section 153D. For substantive additions, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the evidence did not establish actual receipt of funds or that the income was earned.

For AY 1999-2000, the appeal was dismissed in limine due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the Revenue to file it before ITAT Kolkata. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 to be invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material, especially since the assessment was completed beyond four years and the assessee had consistently disclosed CERC income/loss.

For AY 1999-2000, the appeal was dismissed in limine due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the Revenue to file it before ITAT Kolkata. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reopening of assessment under Section 147 to be invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material, especially since the assessment was completed beyond four years and the assessee had consistently disclosed CERC income/loss.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. A mechanical approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the relevant law. A mechanical approval vitiates the assessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of protective additions, noting that the substantive additions in the related company's case were set aside due to invalid approval under Section 153D. For substantive additions, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the evidence did not establish actual receipt of funds or that the income was earned.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for procedural defects. For the Revenue's appeals, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, upholding the Assessing Officer's findings regarding bogus purchases.