ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in adopting a dual approach by confirming the addition for share capital while deleting the addition for unsecured loans from the same entity. The Tribunal also emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for cross-examination, which was denied to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the 175-day delay in filing before the ITAT, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the 5-day delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that as per the IDS-2016 scheme, if tax is not paid within the specified time, the undisclosed income should be taxed in the previous year in which the declaration was made. The AO incorrectly taxed it in AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's severe medical condition and the interest of natural justice, decided to set aside the assessment. The AO is directed to re-examine the case and provide opportunities for the assessee to present their arguments and documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal noted the assessee's grounds of appeal concerning incorrect attribution of property and share transactions, procedural defects in notice service, and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order without proper verification. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the 175-day delay in filing before the ITAT, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the 5-day delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal quashed the reopening for AY 2013-14 as it was based on a change of opinion. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove abnormal cash sales, the lower authorities did not pinpoint specific defects in the books, leading to a partial allowance.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's stand that the PCIT erred in assuming revision jurisdiction. The PCIT's direction regarding the total sale consideration of Rs. 9.50 crores and the assessment of long-term capital gains was not based on correct facts, as the land was agricultural and outside the definition of a capital asset.

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the reassessment notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merit and had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment, directing the AO to provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as defective. The assessee failed to rectify defects in the appeal memo and did not comply with notices issued by the Tribunal. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years is invalid for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessment order framed based on such a note is quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the 175-day delay in filing before the ITAT, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the 5-day delay and decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, accepting the medical emergency of the managing trustee as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to submit the necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, accepting the medical emergency of the managing trustee as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to submit the necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had attempted to prove its purchases and expenses, some element of failure to explain them could not be ruled out, especially when the AO found some suppliers to be non-existent. However, the Revenue's complete disbelief of the assessee's claims was also not fully justified.

The Tribunal held that the bank account in question belonged to a trust, not the assessee, and the AO failed to provide collaborative evidence to link the cash deposits to the assessee's undisclosed income. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had already been remanded for de novo assessment. Since the penalty proceedings were consequential, they did not survive at this stage. The impugned order on penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C, holding that the date of handing over seized material to the assessee's AO was the date of search initiation. As this date was after April 1, 2021, Section 153C did not apply.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim. The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the Delhi Benches of the ITAT do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the appeal, as the assessee's regular assessment jurisdiction is at Agra. This is based on the Tribunal's Standing Order and a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the 'situs' of the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect, excluding Education Cess, was below the threshold limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of all expenses, the disallowance of 10% might be excessive. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to 2% of the disputed amount.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing the principle that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was not sustainable in law as it was based on conjectures and surmises rather than tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized that statements from searches alone, without corroborative evidence, are insufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and the assessment order was also ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a limited purpose.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was not sustainable in law as it was based on conjectures and surmises rather than tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized that statements from searches alone, without corroborative evidence, are insufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee and did not decide all grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was not sustainable in law as it was based on conjectures and surmises rather than tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized that statements from searches alone, without corroborative evidence, are insufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an irrevocable clause in the trust deed was a valid ground for rejection of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). Consequently, the approval under Section 80G was also rightly rejected.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was not sustainable in law as it was based on conjectures and surmises rather than tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized that statements from searches alone, without corroborative evidence, are insufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, accepting the medical emergency of the managing trustee as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to submit the necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was not sustainable in law as it was based on conjectures and surmises rather than tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized that statements from searches alone, without corroborative evidence, are insufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal quashed the reopening for AY 2013-14 as it was based on a change of opinion. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to prove abnormal cash sales, the lower authorities did not pinpoint specific defects in the books, leading to a partial allowance.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was not sustainable in law as it was based on conjectures and surmises rather than tangible material. The Tribunal emphasized that statements from searches alone, without corroborative evidence, are insufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The Revenue failed to controvert the findings of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to duly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was framed ex parte and upheld by the CIT(A) without proper adjudication on merits. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C, holding that the date of handing over seized material to the assessee's AO was the date of search initiation. As this date was after April 1, 2021, Section 153C did not apply.

The Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C, holding that the date of handing over seized material to the assessee's AO was the date of search initiation. As this date was after April 1, 2021, Section 153C did not apply.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was decided ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the NFAC for a decision on merits after granting a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E), directing that a final opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim. The CIT(E) was instructed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to consider the cause of delay and, if reasonable, condone it. The CIT(A) was also instructed to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an irrevocable clause in the trust deed was a valid ground for rejection of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii). Consequently, the approval under Section 80G was also rightly rejected.

The Tribunal held that for determining the existence of a Service PE under the India-US DTAA, 'unique solar days' of employee presence are to be considered, not cumulative 'man-days'. Since the unique solar days of presence were less than 90, no Service PE was constituted.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the permissible surviving period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order was rendered unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the 175-day delay in filing before the ITAT, adopting a liberal approach as per Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the 5-day delay and decide the appeals on merits.