ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that the Final Assessment Order was barred by limitation. Citing precedents and rejecting the revenue's request for deferral, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are not mutually exclusive but are mutually inclusive and that the limitation period prescribed under Section 153 is applicable. The Tribunal found that the final assessment orders for the impugned assessment years were passed beyond the period of limitation.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal ruled that the revenue should follow the procedure under Section 158AB for identical questions of law pending before higher courts. The Tribunal decided not to defer adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, these assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders for AY 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. The Tribunal found that the dates provided by the assessee, which were not disputed by the Revenue, clearly indicated that the final assessment orders were passed after the due dates. Following the ratio laid down in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal concluded that these assessment orders were passed without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders for the impugned assessment years were quashed. As the assessee succeeded on the legal issue of limitation, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate other grounds of appeal for the respective assessment years, leaving them open. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed as the assessment orders were held to be without jurisdiction and quashed. The Tribunal noted that both parties could revive their appeals if the Supreme Court reverses the law expounded in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the impugned final assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153 r.w. Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The impugned order was quashed.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence for the transactions and cash deposits. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the AO had not pointed out any inconsistencies in the provided documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders in all four cases were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Relying on the decision in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive, and the timelines under Section 153 are applicable.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent. It found that the final assessment orders for the impugned assessment years were passed beyond the period of limitation as stipulated in Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent for determining the limitation period. Based on the provided date charts, which were not disputed by the Revenue, the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the statutory time limits.

The Tribunal held that the multiplicative factor of '1' should be applied to the property sold by the assessee. The reasoning was that the property was recorded as agricultural/residential in the revenue records maintained by the State Government. While the property was used for commercial purposes (godown), no sanction was obtained, nor was any penalty levied by the competent authority for such misuse. The Tribunal emphasized that a deemed conversion of land based on usage alone is not valid unless recognized by revenue authorities. For the purpose of calculating circle rates under Section 50C, the nature of the property must be determined based on the revenue records. Since the property was recorded as agriculture/residential in revenue records and the agreement to sell, the multiplicative factor of '1' was correctly applied by the CIT(A). The AO's application of factor '3' was deemed invalid. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The assessee's cross-objection and appeal were rendered infructuous due to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and prior High Court orders.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's quantum appeal was pending before the Delhi High Court, which had admitted a substantial question of law. Due to this pendency and the admitted substantial question of law, the Tribunal found the penalty imposition debatable.

The Tribunal held that while the entire purchase amount cannot be added, the profit element on alleged purchases should be included. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the invalidity of the assessment order due to a mechanically granted approval under Section 153D. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted without proper application of mind, vitiating the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the impugned final assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the stipulated period of limitation as prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Therefore, the final assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. Section 153 governs the period up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the period from the draft order to the final assessment order.

The Tribunal, referencing the Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. judgment, held that the final assessment orders were indeed passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. It concluded that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive, and orders passed beyond the statutory time limit are without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders for the impugned assessment years were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated approval for multiple assessment years granted by the Addl. CIT was against the mandate of law. Such approvals require an independent application of mind for each assessment year and cannot be a mere ritualistic formality or rubber stamping.

The Tribunal held that the impugned final assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153 r.w. Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and interdependent. The final assessment orders for the impugned AYs were found to be passed beyond the stipulated limitation period, rendering them without jurisdiction. Consequently, these orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that Section 69C pertains to the 'source' of expenditure, not its 'authenticity'. Since the assessee's purchases were accounted for in regular books and payments were made through banking transactions, the source was explained. The AO's attempt to disallow based on the genuineness of vouchers was found to be outside the scope of Section 69C.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders for the impugned assessment years were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle for assessment, including specific time windows for different actions, and operates notwithstanding the general limitation in Section 153. The assessment orders were found to be within the stipulated timelines under Section 144C.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders were passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to conduct necessary inquiries regarding the difference between CBEC data and the assessee's books. It also found merit in the assessee's explanation for cash deposits during demonetization, supported by the cash book, and noted that Section 115BBE was not applicable for the assessment year.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and allowed the jurisdictional ground of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative argued that no incriminating material was found during the search related to the assessee, and the assessment year 2008-09 was unabated. The assessee relied on the Hon'ble High Court's decision in CIT (Central) vs. Kabul Chawala (380 ITR 573), which held that assessment under section 153A is permissible only if incriminating material is unearthed during the search. The Tribunal observed that no incriminating material related to the assessee was found during the search. While the Departmental Representative mentioned blank share application forms signed by the Directors of SRS Group, these were not filed before the Tribunal. The AO completed the assessment for an unabated year in the absence of incriminating material. Therefore, following the precedent, the reassessment was quashed. Other grounds raised by the assessee were left open.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive, and the limitation period under Section 153 applies to remanded proceedings. Assessment orders passed beyond the prescribed time limits were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's decision to make additions on a protective basis was dependent on substantive additions made in another case. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2020-21, the assessment should have been under Section 153C. It was held that sustaining protective additions without substantive additions lacks legal sanctity.

The Tribunal held that the impugned final assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153 r.w. Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions, noting the AO did not question purchases and that subsequent enquiries under Section 133(6) confirmed major creditors. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is invalid and barred by limitation. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). It noted that the first notice under section 148 was issued on 28.06.2021, which is after April 1, 2021. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had conceded before the Supreme Court that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that for AY 2015-16, no notice under section 148 could be issued after the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which limitation expired on March 31, 2022. Even as per the pre-amended section 149 of the Act, the notice issued on 30.07.2022 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 dated 30.07.2022 was held to be invalid, and the consequent order passed under section 147 dated 13.04.2023 was quashed. The legal ground of appeal concerning limitation was allowed. As this legal ground was allowed, other grounds were rendered academic.

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. Consequently, the final assessment orders in all four cases were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and that the assessment orders for the impugned AYs were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal followed the ratio of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal, holding that Section 144C and Section 153 of the Act are mutually inclusive. Consequently, the Final Assessment Order dated 28/05/2024 was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Following precedent and to maintain consistency, the Tribunal quashed the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and not in accordance with the law, as it lacked proper application of mind. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under Section 153D was mechanical and not in accordance with the law, as it lacked proper application of mind. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153A.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The impugned order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a valid tool for calculating the Arm's Length Price (ALP) and that the assessee's disclosed and adjusted gross margins were substantially higher than comparables, indicating adequate compensation for AMP expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Act. Consequently, the final assessment orders were quashed as being barred by limitation.