ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal rejected the Department's objection, noting that the Madras High Court's decision in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., on which the assessees relied, was not stayed by the Supreme Court. Following the ratio of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., the Tribunal held that sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and interdependent for determining the limitation period. As the final assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation, they were deemed without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive, 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 as well.

The Tribunal, rejecting the Revenue's objections regarding the pendency of a similar issue before the Supreme Court in other cases, confirmed that the Madras High Court's decision in Roca Bathroom Products was not stayed and constituted a valid precedent. It held that sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent, and therefore, the final assessment orders passed by the AO beyond the stipulated period of limitation, considering both sections, were barred by limitation.

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 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 rejected the Revenue's preliminary objections, noting that the *Roca Bathroom* judgment, on which assessees relied, was not stayed. On merits, the Tribunal adopted the *Roca Bathroom* ratio, holding that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive, and the period of limitation for passing final assessment orders under Section 144C(13) must be determined by reading it with Section 153. Given that the final assessment orders in these appeals were passed beyond this combined period of limitation, the Tribunal concluded they were without jurisdiction and quashed them.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were duly accounted for, payments were made through regular banking channels from disclosed sources, and the lower authorities had not doubted the source of expenditure. A co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case was relied upon. The sales were already disclosed as taxable revenue, and treating them as unexplained cash credit amounted to double addition.

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 approval for the notice under Section 148 was not granted with due application of mind by the PCIT, as it was merely a mechanical endorsement and not reflective of independent consideration. The notice was therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 are mutually inclusive and overlapping. 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 assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The period of limitation for passing the final assessment order under section 144C(13) must be determined with reference to section 144C read with section 153. The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation.

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 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 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 rejected the Revenue's preliminary objection, applying the ratio of Roca Bathroom Products, as its operative portion was not stayed. It held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive for determining the limitation period for final assessment orders. Since the final assessment orders for all three years were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 144C(13) r.w.s. 153 of the Act, they were quashed.

The Tribunal, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd., held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and interdependent. It concluded that the final assessment orders for both AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, thus quashing the orders related to the assessee's appeals and dismissing the Revenue's appeal for AY 2008-09.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objection, noting that the Madras High Court's decision in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (which established the interplay and applicability of Section 153 timelines to DRP proceedings under Section 144C) was not subject to any stay. Applying this ratio, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders for all impugned years were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period, rendering them without jurisdiction and thus quashed.

The Tribunal rejected the department's preliminary objection, noting that the Madras High Court's `Roca Bathroom` decision, which established the mutual inclusivity of Sections 144C and 153 for limitation purposes, was not stayed by the Supreme Court. Upon examining the dates provided, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in all appeals were passed in October 2024, beyond the stipulated due date of December 31, 2023. Consequently, following the ratio of `Roca Bathroom Products P Ltd.`, the Tribunal held that the assessment orders were without jurisdiction and quashed them.

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 for passing the final assessment order needs to be determined by considering both sections. The Tribunal found that the final assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the stipulated time limits.

The Tribunal found that the final assessment orders for all three years were passed beyond the stipulated period of limitation as determined by Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. It rejected the Revenue's plea to defer the matter pending Supreme Court decisions, noting that the Roca Bathroom judgment was not stayed. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as it was completed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. This was due to the fact that the notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional Income Tax Officer (ITO), and no valid order for transfer of jurisdiction was placed on record. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. and held that the final assessment order in the respective assessment years was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(13) r.w.s 153 of the Act. Therefore, the assessment orders were considered to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objection, ruling that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive for determining limitation. Following the ratio of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products P Ltd., it found that the final assessment orders for all impugned assessment years were passed beyond the statutory period of limitation, thus quashing them.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objections, relying on the Madras High Court's ruling in *CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd.*, which held sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive for determining the limitation period. It found that the final assessment order for AY 2012-13, passed on May 10, 2016, was beyond the statutory due date of March 31, 2016. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 are mutually inclusive and the period of limitation for passing the final assessment order under Section 144C(13) must be determined with reference to Section 144C read with Section 153. The Tribunal found that the final assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the period of limitation.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 are mutually inclusive and that the period of limitation for passing final assessment orders must be determined with reference to both sections. The Tribunal found that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and that the period of limitation for passing the final assessment order must be determined with reference to both sections. The assessees' contention that the assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive. The assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Therefore, following the ratio in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (supra), the assessment orders were held to be without jurisdiction.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, observing that the AO failed to consider the modus operandi of Business Correspondents and Customer Service Providers, which involves maintaining a 'settlement account' with the bank for routing transactions. The CIT(A) noted that the transactions were bank transfers to this settlement account, not cash credits, and the assessee regularly filed its returns.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objections, citing the Madras High Court's decision in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., which held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive. Applying this precedent, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders for all impugned assessment years were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). However, additional evidence was filed before the Tribunal, which was considered relevant. The Tribunal admitted these additional evidences and decided to verify them at the Assessing Officer's level.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and not mutually exclusive. The period of limitation for passing the final assessment order must be determined with reference to both sections. The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed beyond the stipulated timelines.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and that the period of limitation for passing the final assessment order is to be determined with reference to both sections. Based on the dates provided, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limits. Therefore, the assessment orders were held to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objection to defer the appeals, distinguishing the Supreme Court's interim order in Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. from the present case which relied on Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive for determining the limitation period for final assessment orders. Based on the undisputed dates provided by the assessees, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period, rendering them without jurisdiction and thus quashed them.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and their periods of limitation are to be read together. The assessment orders for both AYs were passed beyond the statutory time limit.

The Tribunal, rejecting the Revenue's objection to hear the matter while the issue was sub judice before the Supreme Court, followed the ratio of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are not mutually exclusive but mutually inclusive, and therefore, the period of limitation for passing final assessment orders under Section 144C(13) must be determined with reference to Section 153. Finding that the final assessment orders in all appeals were passed beyond this combined period of limitation, the Tribunal concluded they were without jurisdiction and quashed them.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the additions were for "unaccounted income and expenses" and not an "asset," thus the condition of the fourth proviso to Section 153A(1) was not met, and the re-assessment notices issued under Section 148 beyond the six-year period were invalid. The CIT(A) had correctly relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Smart Chip P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are not mutually exclusive but are mutually inclusive. The period of limitation prescribed under Section 153(2A) or 153(3) is applicable even in cases of remand to the Assessing Officer, TPO, or DRP. The Tribunal further held that the final assessment orders for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13 were passed beyond the period of limitation, rendering them without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objection, distinguishing the cited Supreme Court case and relying on a Madras High Court decision. On merits, the Tribunal held that sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive, and the period of limitation for the final assessment order must be determined by reading them together. Consequently, the assessment order for AY 2012-13, passed beyond the prescribed limitation, was deemed without jurisdiction and quashed.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objection, noting that the Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. judgment was not stayed. Following the Madras High Court's ratio, the Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and interdependent, requiring the period of limitation for final assessment orders under Section 144C(13) to be determined with reference to Section 153. As the final assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders.

The Tribunal, after rejecting the Revenue's preliminary objection to hearing the appeals, concluded that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive, as established by the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (supra). Upon reviewing the assessment dates, it found that the final assessment orders for all impugned assessment years were passed beyond the combined period of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal held these assessment orders to be without jurisdiction and quashed them.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's preliminary objections, noting that the Madras High Court's decision in Roca Bathroom Products, on which the assessees relied, was not stayed. Adhering to the principle that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive for determining the period of limitation, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in both appeals were passed beyond the statutory time limits. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and that the period of limitation for passing the final assessment order under Section 144C(13) must be determined with reference to Section 153. The Tribunal noted that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and were therefore without jurisdiction.