ITAT Delhi Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that a one-sided transfer pricing adjustment for delayed receivables, ignoring payments received in advance or well within the credit period, is not permissible. The principle laid down by the Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15 was applied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving a reasonable cause for the violation, following its own earlier order in a similar case for a different assessment year. The penalty was cancelled based on the bonafide belief of the assessee due to past practices.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable as the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's submissions that records were maintained and an audit report was submitted. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The ITAT held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient and that dismissing the appeal on technical grounds would defeat substantial justice. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including the director's ITR and bank statements, to explain the source and creditworthiness of the funds.

The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, exempt under Section 10(37). The PCIT's revision based on a potentially distinguishable High Court ruling was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was beyond the permissible date, rendering the entire reassessment proceedings time-barred and vitiated. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not recorded satisfaction regarding the inadequacy of the assessee's voluntary disallowance. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior AY, the Tribunal deleted the AO's addition.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained fresh approval under Section 80G, rendering the current appeal infructuous. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. It held that the Revenue failed to prove that Zscaler India constituted a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) of the assessee under Article 5 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof lies initially on the Revenue, as held by the Supreme Court in Assistant Director of Income-tax-1, New Delhi vs. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. The Tribunal found no evidence to establish agency or that Zscaler India was habitually exercising authority to conclude contracts or securing orders for the assessee. The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the Revenue, such as Daikin Industries Ltd. and Rolls Royce Singapore (P.) Ltd., and followed its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and in Siemens Mobile Communications SPA vs. DCIT. Consequently, the attribution of 25% of receipts earned from India to the alleged DAPE and the consequent addition of INR 29,54,25,600 as profit were held to be unsustainable and were deleted. Grounds 4 to 8 of the appeal were allowed. Grounds 9 to 11 became academic and were left undecided. Ground 12 regarding penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The ITAT held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient and that dismissing the appeal on technical grounds would defeat substantial justice. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that rejecting registration merely for non-submission of documents, without examining the charitable objects and genuineness of activities, is not justified. The matter was set aside to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunities for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the creditworthiness of M/s Akash Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. and the source of the stamp duty payment remained unverified. Therefore, these issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal held that a technical glitch in the application form should not be a ground for denying beneficial exemption. Substance should prevail over form, and the CIT(Exemption) should re-adjudicate the matter.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IE is a directory, not a mandatory, requirement. Therefore, the assessee's claim for assessment under Section 115BAC should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the information originated from seized material during the search. To ensure justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to determine the source of information.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided month-wise details of cash sales and deposits, demonstrating a consistent pattern. The Tribunal accepted that the cash deposits were satisfactorily explained as arising from cash sales and available cash-in-hand.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69A was based on suspicion, not evidence. Since the assessee demonstrated that the cash deposits were reflected in the books of account and supported by audited financials and VAT returns, the addition was unjustified.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the claim of material lost in transit, considering the new submissions made by the assessee.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the assessee had provided bank statements for both parties and a confirmation from the lender. The Tribunal concluded that sufficient funds were available with the lender to advance the loan.

The Tribunal noted that ex parte orders were passed by the AO and CIT(A), likely due to non-representation. In the interest of natural justice, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after substituting the legal representative.

The Tribunal found that the purchase agreement showed the property value at Rs. 20,00,000/-, not Rs. 80,00,000/-. Furthermore, the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond 3 years and did not meet the threshold for escaped income under Section 149(1)(b).

The Tribunal held that the application of Section 115BBE via a rectification order under Section 154 was not permissible. It also noted that Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without proper notice or opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had claims for exemption on leave encashment and compensation on voluntary retirement.

The Tribunal found that the lenders had sufficient bank balances, their identity was not disputed, and transactions were through banking channels. No material was brought on record by the Revenue to show the funds originated from the assessee, and the addition was made on general observations without specific infirmities. Therefore, the ad-hoc addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals granted under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, held that the approvals under Section 153D were mechanical and not in accordance with law, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for Rs. 11,06,860/- relating to earnest money deposit for a joint bid to procure natural gas, considering it a revenue loss incurred for the purpose of business. However, the judgment does not explicitly detail the decision on the remaining amount of written-off advances.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was consequential in nature. Since the corresponding quantum additions had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty had no basis to stand.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly granted exemption as the assessee had a valid registration under Section 12AA. This was supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in the assessee's own case, which was not stayed by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it was a consolidated approval for multiple assessment years without examining the merits. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.