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. 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 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 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 found no merit in the Revenue's stand. It noted that the impugned amount related to a development agreement dated 18.08.2012, which did not fall within the assessment years in question. The sum was more akin to damages for non-fulfillment of the agreement rather than cash loans.

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 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 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 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 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 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 set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

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 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 considered the assessee's audited profit rates ranging between 3.94% to 5.33% in subsequent years. In the interest of justice, a lump sum net profit estimation of 7% was deemed appropriate for the assessee's case, with the caveat that it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act are mutually inclusive and interdependent, not mutually exclusive. Citing the Madras High Court's ruling in Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd., the Tribunal found that the final assessment orders in all five appeals were indeed passed beyond the stipulated limitation period and were therefore invalid.

The Tribunal held that the findings of the CIT(A) were not to be disturbed. The CIT(A) had meticulously considered the evidence provided by the assessee, including identity particulars, mode of receipt, bank statements of the appellant and loan creditors, loan confirmations, and explanations of the source of funds. The CIT(A) found that the primary onus under Section 68 was discharged by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not made any independent inquiries and had relied on general observations. The CIT(A) also correctly observed that the second proviso to Section 68, requiring explanation of the 'source of source', was not applicable to firms and loan transactions in the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal, following the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Addl.CIT vs. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT v. KRBL Pvt. Ltd., concluded that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

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

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was vitiated as it was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind, considering the draft assessment orders were forwarded without the complete assessment record. The approvals were found to be composite for multiple years and thus not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 was beyond the period of limitation. It was observed that the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) was not applicable for reopening assessments for AY 2015-16, as conceded by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should only consider dividend-yielding investments, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning ESOP expenses, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. Regarding the additional claims for medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit them, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. Furthermore, the Tribunal quashed the AO's rectification order under Section 154 as it was passed after the settlement of disputes under the DTVSV Scheme.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should only consider dividend-yielding investments, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning ESOP expenses, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. Regarding the additional claims for medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit them, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. Furthermore, the Tribunal quashed the AO's rectification order under Section 154 as it was passed after the settlement of disputes under the DTVSV Scheme.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should only consider dividend-yielding investments, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning ESOP expenses, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. Regarding the additional claims for medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit them, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. Furthermore, the Tribunal quashed the AO's rectification order under Section 154 as it was passed after the settlement of disputes under the DTVSV Scheme.

The Tribunal held that money collected by a company cannot be assessed in the hands of its director as unexplained money. If an addition is to be made, it should be in the hands of the company, not the director.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D is administrative in nature and does not require the approving authority to decide the legal sustainability of proposed additions. The assessee failed to demonstrate non-application of mind by the approving authority.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the AO had not commented on the documentary evidence filed by the assessee and had relied solely on the statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had provided sales invoices, transporter certificates, bank statements, ledger accounts, and stock registers to support the transactions. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not make efforts to cross-verify the genuineness of the sales and purchases, and the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the non-searched person is considered the date of search. Based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the assessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 were found to be beyond the permissible ten-year block.

The Tribunal noted that a moratorium had been ordered by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for 180 days, during which no legal action could be initiated against the applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the present appeals could not be proceeded with.

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 orders were quashed on this limited legal issue.

The Tribunal noted an order from the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which admitted Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) for the assessees and imposed a moratorium on all debts. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the pending appeals could not be proceeded with due to this moratorium.

The Tribunal held that the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the non-searched person is considered the date of search. Based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the assessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 were found to be beyond the permissible ten-year block.

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

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 period applies up to the draft order, while Section 144C governs the subsequent stages, making the assessment orders valid.

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

The Tribunal held that the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the non-searched person is considered the date of search. Based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the assessment proceedings for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 were found to be beyond the permissible ten-year block.

The Tribunal observed that the addition was made substantively for AY 2017-18 and protectively for other years, leading to potential double taxation. The assessee argued he was merely an employee and not involved in IFAMA's financial activities.

The Tribunal observed that the addition was made substantively for AY 2017-18 and protectively for other years, leading to potential double taxation. The assessee argued he was merely an employee and not involved in IFAMA's financial activities.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had furnished partial details and faced difficulties in providing complete information. The Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to comply with the CIT(E)'s directions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee proved the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the parties involved. The grounds of appeal were accepted, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders.

The Tribunal, relying on decisions from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other High Courts, held that the assessment order dated 27.03.2025 was indeed passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Act. The uploading of DRP directions on the ITBA portal was considered the effective date for computing the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was invalid as it was granted mechanically for multiple cases on a single day, rendering the subsequent proceedings under Section 153C r.w.s. 153A bad in law.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a special regime for the finalization of assessments after the draft order stage, which operates notwithstanding the general limitation period in Section 153. The special time windows within Section 144C are intended to be followed, making the assessment process workable and achieving the objective of expeditious dispute resolution.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should only consider dividend-yielding investments, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's grounds concerning ESOP expenses, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. Regarding the additional claims for medical reimbursement and leave travel allowance, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit them, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. Furthermore, the Tribunal quashed the AO's rectification order under Section 154 as it was passed after the settlement of disputes under the DTVSV Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the penalty paid for late supply of goods, as per tender conditions, is a breach of contract and not an offense. Therefore, it should be allowed as a business expenditure under Section 37.

The Tribunal noted that identical appeals for other AYs were restored to the CIT(A) by a coordinate bench due to ex-parte orders. Following this precedent and in the interest of justice, the current appeals were also restored.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment orders in all eight cases were passed beyond the stipulated period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and material on record. Citing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Southern Gujarat Chamber Trade and Industrial Development Centre vs. ITO, and the ITAT Mumbai Bench in DCIT vs. Prasad Shetty, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was indeed barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the reassessment proceedings were not completed within the surviving time limit as stipulated by the law and judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal noted that identical appeals for other AYs were restored to the CIT(A) by a coordinate bench due to ex-parte orders. Following this precedent and in the interest of justice, the current appeals were also restored.

The Ld. CIT(A) acknowledged that the purchases were bogus but applied a 4% Gross Profit (GP) rate to reduce the addition. The Tribunal, upon considering the arguments and judicial precedents, found the CIT(A)'s findings reasonable and decided not to interfere. Both the assessee's and the Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 144C provides a complete statutory cycle for assessment orders involving draft orders and directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The time limits within Section 144C are specific to this process and operate notwithstanding the general limitation period in Section 153.

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. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed for being without jurisdiction.