ITAT Delhi Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's submissions before rejecting the applications. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income, and did not provide reasons or specific clauses under section 270A(9) to justify the higher penalty for misreporting. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were considered vague and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence for the loan from the sister concern, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The addition on share premium was deleted as the valuation report from a Chartered Accountant was valid for the book value method. The cash deposits were also found to be sufficiently explained by prior cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to consider the submissions made by the assessee before rejecting the applications. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the orders were set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's cause for prevention. It was held that both the lower authorities' orders were passed ex-parte, and in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals by the revenue. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that section 115BBE, which enhanced the tax rate to 60%, was not applicable to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.

The tribunal held that the 'right to collect toll' is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation at 25%, following a Special Bench decision. However, the subsidy received from NHAI, meant to meet capital costs, was correctly reduced from the project cost as per Section 43(1) Explanation 10, impacting depreciation. The provision for resurfacing expenses was disallowed as it was not an ascertained liability and was calculated without a scientific basis, not meeting the criteria for a contingent liability under AS-29.

The tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under section 153D was mechanical and omnibus, lacking application of mind for each assessment year. Therefore, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO must clearly specify the exact limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income) at the stage of initiating penalty proceedings. The AO's failure to do so renders the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal noted that two appeals were filed for the same matter. Considering the assessee's request for withdrawal of the electronically filed appeal due to duplication and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked the necessary application of mind. The use of ambiguous phrases like 'as amended' in the approval letter, coupled with the approving authority's reliance on the assessee's certification regarding electronic evidence without independent verification, indicated a non-application of mind. The Tribunal also noted the lack of proper reporting and adherence to the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual.

The tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time before the Learned CITA. Therefore, the tribunal directed the Learned CITA to condone the delay, admit the appeal, and decide the issues afresh.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's objection to admitting additional grounds was not valid, as pure legal grounds going to the root of the matter can be entertained. It found that the prescribed authority failed to grant a proper approval under section 148B, vitiating the assessments. Further, for AYs 2021-22 and 2022-23, assessments ought to have been under section 148 r.w.s 147 due to the search conducted.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT for multiple assessment years in a single letter was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment orders. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Delhi High Court and coordinate benches that stated approval must be granted for each assessment year independently.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under section 153D was mechanical and granted for multiple assessment years in a single order, without proper application of mind. This was found to be contrary to the judicial precedents and the High Court rulings which emphasize independent application of mind for each assessment year.

The tribunal held that the right to collect toll is an intangible asset eligible for 25% depreciation, following a Special Bench decision. However, a subsidy received for project cost had to be reduced from the asset's cost, impacting depreciation. The provision for resurfacing expenses was disallowed as it was not based on a scientific method and was a contingent liability. Depreciation on capitalized negative grant for carriageways was also disallowed as it was not an ascertained liability.

The tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment under section 151 was granted mechanically and without proper application of mind by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Additionally, the notice under section 148 was issued by an officer without proper jurisdiction, violating CBDT instructions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Addl. CIT under section 153D of the Act was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as it was a single approval for multiple assessment years. Following precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that pure legal grounds can be raised before it, especially when they go to the root of the matter and all facts are on record. It was held that the assessments were vitiated due to the failure of the prescribed authority to grant a proper approval under section 148B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, for AYs 2021-22 and 2022-23, assessments should have been under section 148 r.w.s 147 post-search. The Tribunal also granted relief on unexplained investment and directed the AO to grant telescoping benefit for cash addition.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities wrongly sustained the addition of Rs. 9,60,000 as commission income. The Tribunal found that the assessee's bank account was used for providing accommodation entries and the credit entries remained unexplained. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was upheld.

The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval was obtained from the wrong authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT, as it was beyond 3 years). The Delhi High Court's decisions in Kids Dream International Pvt. Ltd. and H and M Hennes and Mauritz Retail P Ltd. were relied upon.

The Tribunal noted that two appeals were filed by the assessee for the same matter, one physically and one electronically. Considering the assessee's request to withdraw the duplicate electronic appeal and the absence of objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) should have provided the assessee with adequate opportunity to explain its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner ought to have provided adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the orders of the Commissioner were set aside on the grounds of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the NFAC, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claims and directing the assessee to cooperate with the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the penalty in dispute would not survive as the coordinate bench of the ITAT had already deleted the quantum addition. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal held that it could entertain pure legal grounds that go to the root of the matter and admitted the additional grounds. The Tribunal found that the prescribed authority failed to grant a proper approval under section 148B of the Act, vitiating the assessments. Furthermore, for AYs 2021-22 and 2022-23, the assessments ought to have been framed under section 148 r.w.s 147, not 143(3), following a search. Relief was also granted regarding unexplained investment in property and cash addition by allowing telescoping benefit.

The Tribunal held that additional grounds challenging the validity of assessment and reassessment proceedings on purely legal grounds can be admitted. It was found that the prescribed authority failed to grant a proper approval under section 148B, vitiating the entire assessment. Furthermore, for the relevant assessment years, assessments ought to have been framed under section 148 r.w.s 147 following the search.

The Tribunal held that mere presumptions and suspicions cannot lead to addition under section 69A. While the CIT(A) sustained Rs. 9,60,000 as commission income, the Tribunal found that the assessee's account was used for accommodation entries and credit entries remained unexplained. Thus, the addition made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under section 153D was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as a single approval was given for multiple assessment years without due diligence. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the 'right to collect toll' is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation at 25%, following a Special Bench decision. It also upheld the AO's disallowance of provision for resurfacing expenses as it was not based on a scientific method and was contingent. Depreciation on carriageways was disallowed as it was considered a 'building' eligible for 10% depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the right to collect toll is an intangible asset eligible for 25% depreciation, following a Special Bench decision. However, it upheld the disallowance of the provision for resurfacing expenses as it was not based on a scientific and rational method. The claim of depreciation on capitalized negative grants for carriageways was also dismissed as it was not an ascertained liability. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 153D was mechanical, lacking independent application of mind. It was granted for multiple assessment years in a single letter, which is contrary to the requirement of approving for 'each assessment year' independently.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the JCIT under section 153D was mechanical and vitiated the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the approval letter, which used ambiguous phrases like 'as amended' and merely relied on the AO's certification of electronic evidence without independent verification, indicated a lack of application of mind. The Tribunal also noted the AO's failure to comply with the CBDT's Digital Evidence Investigation Manual.

The Tribunal held that the common approval obtained by the AO under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the entire assessment vitiated. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was fundamentally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the common approval obtained under Section 153D of the Act for multiple assessment years vitiated the entire assessment proceedings. Such approval lacked application of mind and was fundamentally flawed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind by the approving authority. The approval process was found to be a carbon copy across assessment years, failing to meet the statutory requirements.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was justified as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries to ascertain the genuineness of sales, relying instead on conjectures and suspicions. The appellate authority found that sales were verifiable and supported by evidence, and that the CIT(A) had rightly provided relief.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during search under Section 132(4) require corroboration and cannot be the sole basis for addition, especially when retracted. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries and relied on surmises and conjectures. The assessee had provided verifiable sales and purchase details, and the AO's action was not supported by cogent material or legal proof.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a common order for multiple years and not based on independent scrutiny of seized documents. Consequently, the assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the DCF valuation report without providing an alternative valuation or demonstrating why the adopted method was incorrect. The commercial wisdom of the investors, who are reputable businessmen, investing in the startup was not to be questioned by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that statements recorded during search under Section 132(4) require corroboration and cannot be the sole basis for addition, especially when retracted. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not valid because the approval was not obtained from the specified authority (Principal Chief Commissioner) as mandated by section 151(ii) of the Act, especially since the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the documents, particularly annexure A-5 and A-1, were 'dumb documents' as the Revenue failed to conclusively prove the assessee's connection to them or their contents. Additions based on such documents cannot be sustained as per established legal principles.

The Tribunal held that IPO expenses for an aborted IPO are revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1). It also held that gains from foreign exchange and excess provisions are derived from the EOU unit and eligible for Section 10B deduction. The disallowance under Section 14A was limited to the extent of exempt income, and losses on forward contracts were considered normal business losses (hedging) and not speculative. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, while the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act mandates that unexplained funds should be considered in the year they are credited to the books of account. Since the Rs. 80 lakh was credited on 01.04.1996, the addition for AY 1997-98 was valid.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on retracted statements without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. It confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 69A addition and partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the purchase disallowance, imposing a 5% disallowance on the remaining disputed amount.

The Tribunal held that since the documents (Annexures A-5 and A-1) were 'dumb documents' with no conclusively proven connection to the assessee and not established to be in his handwriting or ownership, additions made based on them were not sustainable.