ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice were breached in the rectification proceedings and that additional evidence submitted by the assessee required examination. The matter was set aside and restored to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, as recorded by the AO, is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed under this section are quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding discounts and IUC charges, following earlier precedents. It also allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of spectrum charges under Section 35ABB or depreciation under Section 32. The Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding discounts and IUC charges, following earlier precedents. It also allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of spectrum charges under Section 35ABB or depreciation under Section 32. The Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, as recorded by the AO, is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed under this section are quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back. The assessee is granted liberty to file a condonation application before the CIT(A), who will then decide it in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits by providing complete books of accounts and sales-related documents, and that the AO had not disputed the purchases. Regarding unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its primary burden by providing lender details, ITRs, and bank statements, and the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries to rebut the assessee's claims.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable in light of CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back. The assessee is granted liberty to file a condonation application before the CIT(A), who will then decide it in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not complied with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP had directed the deletion of additions made on account of non-compliance with TDS provisions for payments to Mr. Ronald Shuker (Rs. 1,31,867) and M/s Ecociate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 44,34,652). The DRP had specifically noted that the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) for Mr. Shuker was furnished before it, and for M/s Ecociate Consultants Pvt. Ltd., it directed verification of their compliance with Section 201 proviso and submission of Certificate 26A. The AO, however, in the assessment order, rejected the assessee's submissions, stated that TRC for Mr. Shuker was not submitted, and that payment to Ecociate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. contravened TDS provisions, thereby denying these amounts as business expenditure. The Tribunal found that the AO was required to carry out the directions issued by the DRP under Section 144C(5) before completing the assessment. Since the AO failed to comply with these directions, the ends of justice required the matter to be restored to the AO to comply with the DRP's directions, including deleting the additions made with respect to Mr. Shuker and M/s Ecociate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal did not decide on the other grounds raised by the assessee regarding tax immunity and the nature of revenue recognition, as the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes based on the AO's non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice were breached in the rectification proceedings and that additional evidence submitted by the assessee required examination. The matter was set aside and restored to the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, as recorded by the AO, is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed under this section are quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it was a stereotype notice where the Assessing Officer had not struck off the irrelevant limb, thus failing to specify the charge for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the penalty order to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided the assessee an opportunity to produce documents and be heard before rejecting the applications. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided the assessee an opportunity to produce documents and be heard before rejecting the applications. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO to ascertain the due date for remittance of EPF and ESI contributions of employees, following a coordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding discounts and IUC charges, following earlier precedents. It also allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of spectrum charges under Section 35ABB or depreciation under Section 32. The Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the property was a long-term capital asset based on the agreement to sell and full payment made in FY 2013-14. It also confirmed the inclusion of registration charges in the cost of acquisition for indexation.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years, as recorded by the AO, is invalid and fatal to the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessments framed under this section are quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding discounts and IUC charges, following earlier precedents. It also allowed the assessee's claim for deduction of spectrum charges under Section 35ABB or depreciation under Section 32. The Revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of calculating average cash deposits was flawed and that the cash sales, accepted as part of total sales, explained the source of cash deposits. Therefore, the addition resulted in double addition and was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rejection of the books of accounts was not justified as the reasons cited, such as purchases from sister concerns and non-furnishing of quantitative details, were found to be incorrect or unsubstantiated. Consequently, the ad-hoc adoption of a GP rate for income estimation was also disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the receipts by the assessee towards repairs and maintenance services are not in the nature of FTS within the meaning of Article 12(4) of the India-Canada DTAA and Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. The reasoning was that for payments to be classified as FTS under these treaties, the services must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, or processes to the recipient, enabling them to apply the technology. The Tribunal found that the nature of services provided by the assessees did not meet this 'make available' criterion. The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions in the assessee's own group company's case (Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. vs. DCIT) and other similar cases, where it was held that repair and maintenance services do not qualify as FTS. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted, and the impugned assessment orders were set aside. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the grounds related to the levy of interest under section 234B and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A, as the primary issue of taxability was decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land was indeed beyond 8 km from the nearest municipal limits, based on a Tehsildar's report. Therefore, it was not a capital asset and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities could not summarily arrive at a different fair market value without specifically rejecting the assessee's DCF valuation report. It also noted that protective additions under Section 68 are not sustainable when the primary addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is made in the same assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land was indeed beyond 8 km from the nearest municipal limits, based on a Tehsildar's report. Therefore, it was not a capital asset and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay to be genuine and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also held that the valuation of slow and non-moving inventories as per Accounting Standard 2 was correct and the deletion by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also held that the valuation of slow and non-moving inventories as per Accounting Standard 2 was correct and the deletion by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the strict average of past net profit rates or 1%, whichever is higher. It also deleted the addition for unexplained cash credits, finding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the advances proved. The Section 69B addition was deleted as there was no material to support it and a relevant section of the Act was not invoked.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also held that the valuation of slow and non-moving inventories as per Accounting Standard 2 was correct and the deletion by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also held that the valuation of slow and non-moving inventories as per Accounting Standard 2 was correct and the deletion by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also held that the valuation of slow and non-moving inventories as per Accounting Standard 2 was correct and the deletion by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was made in the bank account of M/s. Praveen Iron Store under the proprietorship of Ms. Seema Aggarwal, not the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of agricultural income was too low as it did not consider both Rabi and Kharif crops. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the assessee's agricultural income at Rs. 10,50,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also held that the valuation of slow and non-moving inventories as per Accounting Standard 2 was correct and the deletion by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had only received Rs. 8,25,000/- as rental income, as declared in their GST returns, and had not raised bills for the remaining period. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in not admitting the additional grounds of appeal and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate them on merits. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the refund of excess DDT paid, following established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by the First Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for re-examination, directing that a reasonable opportunity of making submissions be provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in not admitting the additional grounds of appeal and directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate them on merits. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the refund of excess DDT paid, following established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the source and modus operandi of carrying the cash was not justified and was an afterthought. The Tribunal found the AO's addition of Rs. 7.50 crores as unexplained income to be accurate and confirmed it.

The Tribunal found that re-estimating the GP at 8% for M/s. Pandit Homes would be just and proper, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. The GP for the other entity was already lower than declared, thus not requiring interference.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal also held that the valuation of slow and non-moving inventories as per Accounting Standard 2 was correct and the deletion by the CIT(A) was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the need for services and the rendition of services by the commission agent. Payments were made through banking channels with TDS, and the recipient confirmed services and commission receipt. Similar payments in prior years were accepted by the revenue.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, to ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order dated 01.12.2025 was indeed barred by limitation. It noted that the DRP directions were uploaded on 08.10.2025. As per Section 144C(13) of the Act, the final assessment order should be framed within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions were received by the AO. The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in Sumanjeet Agarwal Vs. ITO, considered the date of uploading the DRP directions in the ITBA portal (08.10.2025) as the date of receipt. The final assessment order was dated 01.12.2025, which was found to be delayed by 12 minutes and 21 seconds, exceeding the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal also referred to a similar issue in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the final assessment order as barred by limitation and void ab initio, quashing the assessment. Since relief was granted on this preliminary ground, other grounds raised by the assessee were left undecided.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to respond to the AO's notices without fail.