ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Following the ratio in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent, and the non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. Following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other precedents, the Tribunal found that the assessment order was indeed barred by limitation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the justification provided. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues on merits were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and the time limitations prescribed under Section 153 are indeed applicable. It was observed that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the stipulated period of limitation, rendering them without jurisdiction.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's ground regarding unexplained investment, holding that the deposits were renewals of old FDs and not fresh investments, and therefore, Section 69 of the Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal found no substance in the revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are not mutually exclusive but are interdependent. The Tribunal further held that the time limit prescribed under Section 153 is applicable and the Final Assessment Order passed by the AO was indeed time-barred.

The Tribunal considered that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on audit objections and a change of opinion, without tangible material or failure of the assessee to disclose material facts. The notice for reassessment was also issued beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing adequate justification. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had grounds regarding the opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order was silent on this aspect.

The Tribunal noted that Circular No. 6/2024 clarified that for PANs linked with Aadhaar by 31.05.2024, there would be no liability on the deductor/collector for transactions beyond 31.03.2024. The Ld. CIT(A) had wrongly denied the assessee's reliance on Circular No. 3 of 2023.

The Tribunal found that the Joint Commissioner had granted a consolidated approval for multiple cases in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. This rendered the approval invalid and vitiated the entire assessment proceedings. Consequently, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive for determining the limitation period for final assessment orders. Based on the provided date chart, the final assessment order was found to be passed beyond the stipulated time limit.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. It found that the final assessment orders for both assessment years were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The time limit prescribed under Section 153 is applicable, and the final assessment order dated 12/07/2024 was passed beyond the statutory limitation.

The Tribunal observed that the transaction involved the transfer of rights in an immovable property, which falls under the definition of 'transfer' of a 'capital asset' as per Sections 2(14) and 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, any gain or loss arising from such a transfer should be treated as capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act must be a reasoned one, reflecting due application of mind, and not a mechanical exercise. It found that in several cases, the approval was granted in a consolidated manner or without proper scrutiny of the assessment records, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions emphasizing the need for judicious approval.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous without considering the adjustment made by the CPC in the return income. Such dismissal could lead to dual disallowance. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The presence of a non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. The assessment order was found to be barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent for determining the limitation period for passing final assessment orders. It found that the final assessment orders in the present cases were indeed passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under these sections.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as it was often granted in a consolidated manner or on the same day for multiple cases, without adequate scrutiny of the assessment records. This vitiated the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice u/s 148A(b) was sought from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas as per Section 151 of the Act, approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General. This procedural lapse vitiates the approval.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which appeared relevant, and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of these evidences. The assessee had failed to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and not mutually exclusive. The period of limitation for passing the final assessment order under Section 144C(13) must be determined with reference to Section 153 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the actual dates of passing the final assessment orders in all three assessment years were beyond the stipulated due dates, rendering them barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and that the time limits prescribed under Section 153 are applicable even in cases of remand. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. The Tribunal followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd and quashed the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. The assessment order was found to be barred by limitation as per Section 153 r.w. Section 144C of the Act.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent, and the time limits prescribed under Section 153 must be adhered to. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. Consequently, the assessment orders were found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal ruled that Sections 144C and 153 are not mutually exclusive but are interdependent and overlapping. It found that the final assessment orders for the impugned assessment years were passed beyond the prescribed statutory timelines, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's contentions. Regarding the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), the Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided necessary details and the CIT(A) had taken into consideration the reserves and surpluses of the lender company. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to conduct an inquiry under section 133(6) was within the scope of his powers and not an error. The same findings were applied to the assessment year 2013-14.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed jewellery in her income tax returns prior to the search. While the opening balance of jewellery as of 01.04.2006 could not be fully substantiated with proper bills/vouchers, the assessee is a high net worth individual. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the undisclosed jewellery to 20% of the value of jewellery valued as on 31.03.2022, which amounts to Rs. 1,46,05,349/-.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the delay was due to mental ailment, supported by medical documents, and did not appear to be mala fide. Therefore, the delay was condoned and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, relying on the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other precedents, held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. Observing that the final assessment orders in question were indeed passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the Tribunal concluded that these orders were without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and the period of limitation prescribed under Section 153(2A) or 153(3) is applicable to matters remanded back. The assessment orders in question were passed beyond the stipulated time limit, rendering them without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and interdependent for determining the limitation period for final assessment orders. Based on the provided date charts, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in all the appeals were passed beyond the statutory time limits.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. The time limits prescribed under the Act must be adhered to, and orders passed beyond these limits are barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 are mutually inclusive and overlapping, and the time limits prescribed in both sections must be adhered to for passing final assessment orders. It found that the final assessment orders in question were indeed passed beyond the statutory period of limitation.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act for the search assessments was indeed mechanical and lacked due application of mind by the approving authority. This was evidenced by consolidated approvals granted for multiple cases and assessment years without adequate scrutiny.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive, and the period of limitation prescribed under Section 153 is applicable even in cases of remand. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. The assessment orders were passed beyond the statutory limitation period.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive for determining limitation periods. It found that the assessment orders were passed beyond the stipulated timeframes, rendering them without jurisdiction and therefore quashed them, following the precedent set in the Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and that the final assessment order passed for AY 2012-13 was indeed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal, relying on the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and that the time limits for passing final assessment orders must be adhered to. Examining the provided date charts, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in all the appeals were indeed passed beyond the period of limitation.

The Tribunal noted that all transactions were accounted for in the assessee's books, and payments were made from disclosed sources. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act could not be applied in such circumstances where transactions are disclosed and payments are traceable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the circumstances. It was held that the assessee deserves an opportunity to contest the matter on its merits.

The Tribunal ruled that the assessee's incorporation in Singapore lacked commercial purpose and economic substance, being primarily aimed at obtaining tax advantages under the India-Singapore DTAA. The Limitation of Benefit (LOB) clause of the DTAA was invoked, and thus the capital gains were deemed taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition, as the AO had failed to consider the established modus operandi of Business Correspondents and Customer Service Providers under their agreement with SBI. The transaction was a bank transfer to a designated settlement account, not an unexplained cash credit.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The assessment orders passed in these cases were found to be beyond the stipulated time limits prescribed under Section 153, rendering them invalid.

The Tribunal held that on the date of processing the return under Section 143(1), the issue regarding the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF & ESI was highly debatable, as there were divergent views from various High Courts. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. which settled the issue was rendered later. Therefore, the CPC could not have made such a disallowance under Section 143(1), which is meant for prima facie adjustments.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The non-obstante clause in Section 144C(13) does not exclude the operation of Section 153. The Tribunal, following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other coordinate benches, found that the assessment orders were barred by limitation.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not dispute the identity of the lender. Regarding creditworthiness, the CIT(A) had considered the reserves and surpluses of the lender company, concluding they were sufficient for the investment. The Tribunal found no substance in the Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) erred in issuing directions for inquiry under Section 133(6).

The Tribunal held that the differential consideration of Rs. 3,32,960 is within the 10 percent tolerance limit applicable to Section 56(2)(x) of the Act, which is pari materia with Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found the addition to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent, and the time limits prescribed under Section 153 must be adhered to. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the final assessment order was indeed barred by limitation.