ITAT Delhi Judgments — January 2026

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 assessment orders were barred by limitation, following the ratio of the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other co-ordinate bench decisions. The assessment orders were quashed on this limited legal issue.

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 held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. It reasoned that Section 153 governs up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the subsequent process, making the latter's timelines non-redundant.

The Tribunal noted that employees' contributions to PF and ESI are recovered from employees upon salary disbursement, and the due date for deposit is typically within 15 days of the following month. The Tribunal also considered the alternative plea for deduction under Section 37 of the Act, finding it to be without merit as it was specifically covered by Section 36(1)(va). However, the methodology of calculating the default date for PF/ESI was not examined by the AO or CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders passed in the respective assessment years were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 144C(13) read with Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the dates furnished 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 the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal concluded that the final assessment orders passed beyond the period of limitation were without jurisdiction and therefore quashed. The Tribunal also referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in PayPal Payments Pvt. Ltd., which, after considering the Supreme Court's interim order in Shelf Drilling, refused to entertain a writ petition on an identical issue. As the assessee succeeded on the legal issue of limitation, the Tribunal did not adjudicate other grounds of appeal, leaving them open. The appeals were allowed, with liberty to revive them if the Supreme Court allows the revenue's appeal in Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd. The operative direction was to quash the final assessment orders.

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 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 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 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 orders were considered to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after a draft order. It reasoned that Section 153 governs the stage up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the post-draft process, making the mandatory timelines within Section 144C effective.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal, holding that the assessment orders were passed beyond the time frame prescribed under Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the impugned final assessment orders were quashed.

The tribunal noted that the assessment was framed under section 147 r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144B, and the tribunal's earlier bench had restored the matter. The assessment framed on 18.03.2024 was found to be time-barred as per the statutory limitation of 12 months from the end of the financial year under section 153(3) r.w. Proviso.

The Tribunal decided on the commission expenses issue by upholding the deletion made by the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed that the commission paid for arranging a new tenant was an expenditure incurred for the purpose of business and was allowable in the year it was incurred. The Tribunal found the assessee's argument that identifying a new tenant in advance to avoid a gap in rental income was a normal business practice to be logical. It also noted that the possession of the property was handed over during the relevant financial year, and the rent-free period was a standard business practice. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the case of Taparia Tools Ltd., emphasizing that ordinary revenue expenditure incurred exclusively for business purposes should be allowed in the year of incurrence. Regarding the claim of long-term capital loss on the sale of properties, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's grounds. The Tribunal observed that the initial agreement to sell was cancelled, and subsequent MOUs were not supported by legally enforceable documents. The Tribunal noted that funds received were recorded as advances against property in the balance sheet, indicating the original agreement was not acted upon. Therefore, without legally enforceable documents, the assessee's claim of holding rights over the property could not be substantiated, and the findings of the lower authorities were upheld. The issues concerning interest expenditure and housekeeping/security expenses were not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the overall outcome suggests they were also decided in favor of the assessee based on the final order.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the AO's non-application of mind in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148. It was held that the information received from the investigation wing lacked tangible material, and the approval for reassessment was mechanical, rendering the reassessment order invalid.

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, these orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the AO's non-application of mind in initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148. It was held that the information received from the investigation wing lacked tangible material, and the approval for reassessment was mechanical, rendering the reassessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Sections 144C and 153 are mutually inclusive and the time limits prescribed therein are binding. Consequently, the final assessment orders were found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable as the AO's view was based on Supreme Court decisions affirming that interest under Section 28 is part of enhanced compensation. The Tribunal distinguished the High Court decisions relied upon by the PCIT and noted that the SLP dismissal did not constitute a binding precedent.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee because the locker was not in its name. The matter was remitted to the AO to verify the ownership of the locker and decide the issue afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments after the draft order stage. Section 153's general limitation provisions do not apply to the final assessment order passed under Section 144C(13).

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 orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal decided to condone the substantial delay in filing the appeals before the Learned CIT (Appeals) for both Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2018-19. The reasoning was that the delay was not intentional or deliberate, and it was beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee would not benefit from intentionally delaying the filing. For the sake of complete justice, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The matter was remitted back to the file of the Learned CIT (Appeals) to decide the issues on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal directed the assessee to make proper submissions and cooperate with the tax authorities. The issue of whether the eligible claim for AY 2016-17 was wrongly disallowed and gross receipts were taxed as income was not decided on merits by the ITAT, as it was remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice. Considering the facts presented, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh 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 orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special statutory mechanism with its own distinct timelines for completing assessments post-draft order. The time consumed in DRP proceedings is not to be subsumed within the general limitation period of Section 153, as Section 144C is intended to offer an alternate dispute resolution mechanism.

The Tribunal decided to condone the substantial delay in filing the appeals before the Learned CIT (Appeals) for both Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2018-19. The reasoning was that the delay was not intentional or deliberate, and it was beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee would not benefit from intentionally delaying the filing. For the sake of complete justice, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The matter was remitted back to the file of the Learned CIT (Appeals) to decide the issues on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal directed the assessee to make proper submissions and cooperate with the tax authorities. The issue of whether the eligible claim for AY 2016-17 was wrongly disallowed and gross receipts were taxed as income was not decided on merits by the ITAT, as it was remitted to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the seized document was not incriminating material as the entries were duly recorded in the assessee's books of account and the explanation for the Rs. 100 crore entry as an investment was not rebutted. Consequently, the assessment under Section 153A was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation, following the ratio of the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other co-ordinate bench decisions. The impugned order was quashed on the limited issue of limitation.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C prescribes a complete statutory cycle for assessments involving the 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 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 orders were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view permissible in law. The assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's reliance on certain case laws was distinguishable.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee failed to make compliance to the notices. In the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

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 the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation, following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court and other co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders on this limited legal issue.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC, Bengaluru under section 143(1) of the Act for the late deposit of PF and ESI was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments and the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT-I, concluding that the issue was debatable at the time of intimation and should not have been processed under section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the impugned final assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The assessment orders were quashed on this limited legal issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation, following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court and other co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders on this limited legal issue.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had condoned the delay in filing the Audit Report. In light of this condonation, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue of bogus purchases has been decided with divergent views in various recent judicial precedents. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance at 5% of the assessee's alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 17,82,500/-. This disallowance is to be made with a specific rider that it shall not be treated as a precedent for future cases. The necessary computation of this disallowance shall follow as per law. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the AO had conducted detailed inquiries and verifications during the original assessment proceedings regarding the issues raised by the PCIT, and no adverse view was taken. The ITAT concluded that the PCIT failed to appreciate that proper inquiry and examination was made, and therefore, the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the PCIT's order under section 263.

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 assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. It noted that the AO of the assessee recorded satisfaction on 10.05.2022, making AY 2023-24 the searched assessment year. As per the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A, assessment can be made under Section 153A only if undisclosed assets found during the 7th to 10th year preceding the searched assessment year exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. In this case, the amount for which satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the searched person was Rs. 34,71,289/-, which is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision in Pratishtha Garg vs. ITO, which, in turn, followed Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The principle established is that the precondition of Rs. 50 lakhs or more constitutes a sine qua non for initiating action for the extended ten-year block, and this condition is satisfied if the escaped income cumulatively or in aggregate meets the minimum benchmark of Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C for AY 2014-15 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. Following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. and other coordinate benches, the impugned order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the time prescribed under Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The assessment order was accordingly quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation, following the ratio laid down by the Madras High Court and other co-ordinate benches. The Tribunal quashed the assessment orders on this limited legal issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act, following the Madras High Court's judgment and coordinate bench decisions. The impugned orders were quashed.