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 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 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 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 additions related to bogus purchases.

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 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 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 observed that notices were sent to a wrong email address by both the AO and CIT(A), leading to the denial of a proper opportunity of being heard. With no objection from the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh de novo assessment, ensuring the assessee is provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 85-day delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal, noting the Ld. CIT(A)'s failure to provide adequate opportunity and with both parties' consent, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A). This is for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had successfully discharged his onus of proving ownership of the property and the genuineness of the rental income by submitting the registered sale agreement. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that in the interests of justice, the assessee deserved another chance to present their facts before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the reasons for non-compliance and in the interest of substantive justice, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

During the appeal before the ITAT, the Ld. AR submitted that the consequential assessment order, which had made the addition of Rs. 77,96,975/-, was subsequently deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) via an order dated 12.12.2025. As a result, the necessary relief had been granted by the AO, rendering the present appeal before the ITAT infructuous and thus dismissed.

The Tribunal held that despite a common beneficial shareholder (Mr. Praveen Tyagi) in both the lender and assessee companies, the assessee company itself was not a shareholder in the lender company. Relying on various precedents, the Tribunal concluded that a loan or advance provided to a concern that is not a shareholder or member of the payer company cannot be deemed as dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the uploading of the DRP order on the ITBA portal on 28.06.2022 constituted sufficient communication. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was mandated to pass the final assessment order by 31.07.2022. Since the order was passed on 30.08.2022, it was beyond the prescribed limitation period, rendering it bad in law and not sustainable, and was therefore quashed.

The ITAT condoned both the 144-day delay in filing the present appeal and the 498-day delay for the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing the principle that adjudicating forums primarily exist to render justice. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 269SS, which includes 'specified sum' for immovable property transactions, applies only to advances and not to the final sale consideration received at the time of registration of the sale deed. The penalty was therefore not leviable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding an absence of proper fact-finding at the lower levels and inadequate opportunity for the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment for AY 2014-15 under Section 153C(1) was invalid. It held that the conditions for reopening beyond six years were not met, as the aggregate escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and more critically, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of the satisfaction note or handover of seized material to the Assessing Officer.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment for AY 2014-15 under Section 153C(1) was invalid. It held that the conditions for reopening beyond six years were not met, as the aggregate escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and more critically, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of the satisfaction note or handover of seized material to the Assessing Officer.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment for AY 2014-15 under Section 153C(1) was invalid. It held that the conditions for reopening beyond six years were not met, as the aggregate escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and more critically, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of the satisfaction note or handover of seized material to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that no evidence was examined at the lower levels and set aside the impugned orders.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment for AY 2014-15 under Section 153C(1) was invalid. It held that the conditions for reopening beyond six years were not met, as the aggregate escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and more critically, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of the satisfaction note or handover of seized material to the Assessing Officer.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment for AY 2014-15 under Section 153C(1) was invalid. It held that the conditions for reopening beyond six years were not met, as the aggregate escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and more critically, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of the satisfaction note or handover of seized material to the Assessing Officer.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessment for AY 2014-15 under Section 153C(1) was invalid. It held that the conditions for reopening beyond six years were not met, as the aggregate escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, and more critically, AY 2014-15 was beyond the permissible six-year period from the date of the satisfaction note or handover of seized material to the Assessing Officer.

The ITAT found that the CIT(E) had not duly considered the submissions made by the assessee during the hearing before passing the rejection orders. Consequently, the ITAT set aside both impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 was obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-12. As more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act, rendering the jurisdiction assumed illegal and the proceedings void.

The ITAT found that the CIT(E) had not duly considered the submissions made by the assessee during the hearing before passing the rejection orders. Consequently, the ITAT set aside both impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not first adjudicating the legal issues raised by the assessee regarding the validity and service of the Section 148 and Section 142(1) notices. It directed the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on these legal issues after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions, before considering the merits of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D cannot stand once the corresponding assessment, which formed its foundation, has been quashed. Applying the principle 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (when the foundation itself does not exist, any superstructure raised thereupon falls), the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The ITAT observed that the case was fact-based and the insufficient fact-finding at the lower levels prevented proper adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was allowed to submit any evidence, including under Rule 46A, and the Ld. CIT(A) was instructed to examine it and seek a remand report from the AO if necessary.

The Tribunal found that the impugned bank account was opened in the name of the Unit Run Canteen, a fact that remained unrebutted by the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessee's hands was wrongly made and deleted the entire addition of Rs.69,42,191/-.

The tribunal noted that the tax effect on the disputed amount was less than the minimum tax effect of Rs. 60 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17.09.2024. As the circular applies retrospectively to all pending appeals, the Revenue's appeal was rejected for this reason.

Recognizing the ex-parte proceedings and potential communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted three effective opportunities to present and prove its case during the consequential proceedings.

The Tribunal found that notices issued by the CIT(A) were allegedly not served on the assessee, thereby denying an opportunity to explain its case. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a de-novo decision on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the DVO's report, being on record, should have been considered by the lower authorities. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, instructing the AO to duly consider the DVO's report and any other arguments of the assessee, including the claim of ancestral agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. A token cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Legal Services Authority (Legal Aid Cell).

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that similar issues concerning alleged cash interest income in the hands of lenders had been decided in favour of the assessee in related group cases. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal ruled that a protective assessment or addition cannot be sustained unless a substantive assessment is simultaneously made elsewhere. Since the department failed to demonstrate any substantive addition, the protective additions made by the AO were ordered to be deleted.