ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider any evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were proceeded ex-parte as no one appeared on its behalf. However, with the assistance of the Revenue's representative, the Tribunal was informed that the assessee's second application for section 12A registration was rejected for not being in the prescribed format. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(E)'s orders indicated the assessee's failure to furnish all requisite details. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore all three appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee for consequential proceedings. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and consider all evidence. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee does not cooperate, the AO can proceed with the assessment as per law.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were proceeded ex-parte as no one appeared on its behalf. However, with the assistance of the Revenue's representative, the Tribunal was informed that the assessee's second application for section 12A registration was rejected for not being in the prescribed format. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(E)'s orders indicated the assessee's failure to furnish all requisite details. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore all three appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee for consequential proceedings. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of the loan transaction was unsustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search that had a bearing on the assessee's income. Furthermore, a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years was deemed fatal to the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were proceeded ex-parte as no one appeared on its behalf. However, with the assistance of the Revenue's representative, the Tribunal was informed that the assessee's second application for section 12A registration was rejected for not being in the prescribed format. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(E)'s orders indicated the assessee's failure to furnish all requisite details. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore all three appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is directed to provide three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee for consequential proceedings. The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the AO did not thoroughly examine the provided details and that the assessee's past assessment history showed similar expenses were allowed. The Tribunal found that the disallowances were partly justified but the extent of disallowance by the AO and CIT(A) was excessive.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider any evidence presented.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte. Considering potential communication gaps, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that issuing a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, instead of individual notes for each year, is fatal to the assessment proceedings. This decision was based on precedents from the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee, a tour and travel agency, had a sharp increase in turnover and that cash sales were not entirely unusual. While some cash deposits were found to be from backdated sales or unidentifiable sources and thus not genuine, a portion was allowed as a source.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced sufficient evidence, including books of account, sales invoices, and VAT returns, to substantiate the cash sales. The AO had not rejected these books of account, and the sales were also subjected to VAT. The Tribunal further noted that the addition would amount to double addition as the sales were already included in the total income.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to treat reimbursements as Fees for Technical Services, considering them as managerial services. However, the issue of KDID being a Dependent Agent PE was not explicitly detailed as upheld or dismissed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates a partial allowance.

The Tribunal held that the consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, recorded for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, is fatal to the assessment proceedings. The addition made by the Assessing Officer without unabated assessment and incriminating material needs to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a penalty notice without striking off the inappropriate portion, failing to specify the exact offense, indicates a non-application of mind by the AO and is fatal to the penalty proceedings, as it violates principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication within 10 months, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and consider all evidence. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee does not cooperate, the AO can proceed with the assessment as per law.

The Tribunal remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and consider all evidence. The Tribunal clarified that if the assessee does not cooperate, the AO can proceed with the assessment as per law.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to treat reimbursements as Fees for Technical Services, considering them as managerial services. However, the issue of KDID being a Dependent Agent PE was not explicitly detailed as upheld or dismissed in the provided excerpt, but the final result indicates a partial allowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on a perusal of the case records, which included the purchase deed of the immovable property, relevant bills for construction and labor expenses, invoices for property tax treating the property as residential, and electricity connection/consumption details. Regarding the contention that the assessee owned more than one residential house, the Tribunal noted that the assessee declared only one residential property in his election affidavit. The other property mentioned by the CIT(A) was disclosed by the assessee's wife in her name. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had incorrectly included the wife's declaration in the assessee's name, and this was not rebutted by the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was eligible for the impugned Section 54F deduction. The findings of both the AO and CIT(A) were reversed. The deduction of Rs. 6,53,00,317/- was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding whether the seized material pertained to the assessee. This renders the satisfaction invalid, making the subsequent assessments non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding whether the seized material pertained to the assessee. This renders the satisfaction invalid, making the subsequent assessments non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Furthermore, considering the date of search as December 17, 2021, the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 fall outside the 6-year block period, making the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding whether the seized material pertained to the assessee. This renders the satisfaction invalid, making the subsequent assessments non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Since there was no clear indication in the records about the appellant's legal representative status or if proceedings were initiated against him as per Section 159, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022 was indeed barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 149 and the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. The reassessment proceedings and the subsequent order were consequently set aside.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022 was indeed barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 149 and the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal. The reassessment proceedings and the subsequent order were consequently set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's cash deposits were part of its regular sales, reflected in its audited books of accounts, and consistent with sales and deposit patterns in prior years. The AO's assessment was deemed flawed due to procedural issues and a lack of specific defects pinpointed in the books. However, a lump sum addition of Rs. 10,00,000 was made to cover shortfalls, not as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding whether the seized material pertained to the assessee. This renders the satisfaction invalid, making the subsequent assessments non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding whether the seized material pertained to the assessee. This renders the satisfaction invalid, making the subsequent assessments non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm, 'Sehaj Impex', which had dissolved prior to the assessment period, was void and liable to be quashed. The evidence, including IEC modifications, indicated the business was operating as a proprietorship under Mr. Simrandeep Singh Kohli.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Furthermore, considering the date of search as December 17, 2021, the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 fall outside the 6-year block period, making the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was vague and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Furthermore, considering the date of search as December 17, 2021, the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 fall outside the 6-year block period, making the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding whether the seized material pertained to the assessee. This renders the satisfaction invalid, making the subsequent assessments non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C satisfaction notes issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity regarding whether the seized material pertained to the assessee. This renders the satisfaction invalid, making the subsequent assessments non-est in the eyes of law.

The tribunal noted that the Learned CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, which was challenged by the revenue. The tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed information, including appointment letters, PAN cards, and ITR acknowledgements, which were not fully considered by the AO. The tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date the Assessing Officer made a reference for penalty imposition, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date the Assessing Officer made a reference for penalty imposition, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date the Assessing Officer made a reference for penalty imposition, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice.

The Tribunal, relying on various landmark precedents, held that the approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even when dealing with a single assessee. Therefore, the combined approval for all ten years was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The period of limitation is to be counted from the date the Assessing Officer made a reference for penalty imposition, not from the date of the subsequent show-cause notice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow prior period expenses, stating that crystallized expenses should be allowed even if pertaining to a prior year. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat subsidies and export incentives as capital receipts, finding no error in the CIT(A)'s reasoning.

The Tribunal held that no physical stock taking was done during the survey, and the Excel sheet relied upon by the AO was not part of the regular books of account. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition was not justified as there was no difference in the quantity of stock and the assessee had provided evidence for sales.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some evidence, a statement indicated their involvement in an accommodation entry network. Therefore, instead of rejecting turnover entirely, a lump sum GP addition of 8% was made on impugned credit entries. The disallowance of bogus purchases at 12.5% was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objections for both AY 2015-16 and AY 2013-14. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal followed the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, wherein it was accepted that for AY 2015-16, notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion within the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for AY 2015-16 was dismissed as infructuous. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Smart Chip Private Limited, held that the extended limitation period under Section 149(1)(b) could not be invoked in the absence of any material to show that the escaped income was represented in the form of an asset. The Tribunal found that the AO's grounds for reopening involved doubting the genuineness of expenses, which are not assets. Therefore, the impugned notice and proceedings were set aside, and the assessment was quashed. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14 was also dismissed as infructuous. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax under section 153D of the Act was invalid. The approval was a common one for multiple assessment years, including those under appeal, and was granted without proper application of mind, failing to indicate that the draft orders were perused. This vitiated the entire assessment process.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law, even if the departmental authorities were not informed of the assessee's death. This decision was based on a jurisdictional High Court ruling in Savita Kapila Vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue could not dispute the factual position, especially since a prior order for a preceding assessment year had already upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. There was no distinction in facts or law between the two assessment years. Therefore, judicial consistency dictated upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of the impugned addition.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the mechanical manner in which the re-opening of the assessment was approved by the Addl. CIT. Following precedent from the Supreme Court and coordinate benches, the Tribunal held that the approval was mechanical and thus the reassessment proceedings were bad in law.

The Tribunal, relying on various landmark precedents, held that the approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even when dealing with a single assessee. Therefore, the combined approval for all ten years was deemed invalid.