ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2026

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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. Following the ratio in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a valid tool for calculating the Arm's Length Price (ALP) in this case. It found that the assessee's disclosed gross margins, as well as the adjusted gross margins, were substantially higher than those of the comparables for both assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. This significant excess in profitability indicated that the assessee was adequately compensated for the AMP expenses incurred, whether they were considered excessive or not. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no upward adjustment was warranted. The action of the DRP/TPO in making such adjustments could not be supported. The Tribunal also noted that the DRP had not considered the Delhi High Court's order dated 23.08.2016, which was passed prior to the DRP's order. Consequently, the upward adjustment made in the case of the assessee was struck down. The findings for AY 2007-08 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2008-09.

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 Section 144C prescribes a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft assessment order. It reasoned that Section 153 governs the stage up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the process from the draft order to the final assessment order, ensuring an expeditious dispute resolution mechanism.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a non-existent entity, despite the authorities being informed of the amalgamation, is void ab initio and cannot be sustained. This position is supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of certainty and consistency in tax litigation.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a non-existent entity, despite the authorities being informed of the amalgamation, is void ab initio and cannot be sustained. This position is supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of certainty and consistency in tax litigation.

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 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 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 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 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 assessment proceedings were not concluded within the prescribed time limits under Section 153 read with Section 144C. The DRP proceedings are a continuation of assessment and must also adhere to time limits.

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 Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle for assessments involving the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and its timelines are distinct from the general limitation period under Section 153. The assessment orders were not barred by limitation.

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 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 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 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 assessee had raised legal grounds which could have been adjudicated independently of their appearance. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly appreciated the facts regarding conversion charges and transfer expenses based on the evidence submitted, and thus dismissed the Revenue's grounds relating to these. However, concerning the indexed cost of improvement, the Tribunal found a lack of clarity and hence remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

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 final assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle for assessments involving the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and its timelines operate independently of Section 153. Therefore, the assessment orders were not barred by limitation.

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 assessee was in judicial custody and his wife had appeared before the Revisional Authority, but a fresh notice was not issued to him through jail authorities. The Tribunal held that this process was prejudicial and the assessee deserved an opportunity to represent the case adequately.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was in judicial custody and his wife had appeared before the Revisional Authority, but a fresh notice was not issued to him through jail authorities. The Tribunal held that this process was prejudicial and the assessee deserved an opportunity to represent the case adequately.

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 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 noted that the Assessing Officer calculated the six-year block period from the date of search, while the assessee's satisfaction note was recorded later. The Tribunal relied on decisions of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were not concluded within the prescribed time limits under Section 153, rendering the final assessment order bad in law. The transfer of files between offices did not extend these timelines.

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 final assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The impugned order was quashed, following precedents from the Madras High Court and Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal.

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 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 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 subsequent process, including DRP proceedings.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle for assessments involving draft orders and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) proceedings, and its timelines are distinct from Section 153. Therefore, the time consumed in DRP proceedings does not render the final assessment order void due to limitation under Section 153.

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 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.