ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash credits to Rs. 2 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. It restored the issue of interest income on substandard assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure was allowed, and the Section 271DA penalty was deleted.

The tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash credits to Rs. 2 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. It restored the issue of interest income on substandard assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure was allowed, and the Section 271DA penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were not initiated in the corresponding assessment proceedings. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal deleted the penalties.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are for services rendered for maintenance of common areas and do not constitute rent for occupying premises. Therefore, TDS under Section 194C was correctly deducted, and the demand raised by the AO was not justified.

The tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash credits to Rs. 2 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. It restored the issue of interest income on substandard assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure was allowed, and the Section 271DA penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the additional evidence. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to plead and prove its case.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was illegal as it was granted without proper application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the facts of the current assessment year were identical to those of AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, for which prior ITAT decisions were in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal directed that the same decisions should apply to the current appeal.

The tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash credits to Rs. 2 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. It restored the issue of interest income on substandard assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure was allowed, and the Section 271DA penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are for services rendered for maintenance of common areas and do not constitute rent for occupying premises. Therefore, TDS under Section 194C was correctly deducted, and the demand raised by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was passed within the limitation period as it was uploaded on the ITBA portal on 31.03.2024. It also held that the CIT(A) was empowered under Section 251(1)(a) to set aside an ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144 and remand it for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to sustain the additions related to share transactions and unsecured loans. The disallowance of the deduction under Section 80C was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate. An appeal cannot be filed merely in anticipation of penalty proceedings, and the assessee has a remedy to appeal any penalty order if it is passed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the additional evidence. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to plead and prove its case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a reasoned and speaking order as required by Section 250(6) by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating the issues on merits. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's own remand report confirmed the search took place only on 27.02.2020, invalidating the assessment framed under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed as a non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal held that the per-diem amount of Rs. 16,17,724/- received by the assessee was not taxable in India as per Article 16(1) of the India-UK DTAA. The addition made by the AO was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the lower tax authorities failed to provide cogent material to sustain the additions related to share transactions and unsecured loans. The disallowance of the deduction under Section 80C was also found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were not initiated in the corresponding assessment proceedings, which is a fatal flaw. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the reasons provided were bonafide and that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' should be adopted. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash credits to Rs. 2 lakhs and directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. It restored the issue of interest income on substandard assets to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Section 80G deduction for CSR expenditure was allowed, and the Section 271DA penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are for services rendered for maintenance of common areas and do not constitute rent for occupying premises. Therefore, TDS under Section 194C was correctly deducted, and the demand raised by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate. An appeal cannot be filed merely in anticipation of penalty proceedings. The assessee has a remedy to appeal against any penalty order if it is passed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. However, the Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if the tax effect was found to be higher or protected by exceptions.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable when the source of expenditure is unexplained, not when purchases are found to be bogus. Since the AO disallowed the purchases as bogus under Section 37(1) and this was challenged by the assessee, the PCIT's revision under Section 263 was unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that assessment proceedings could not be initiated or continued against the company during the operation of the moratorium. Consequently, the reassessment order passed was deemed invalid and quashed.

The Tribunal held that while the sale of firewood was established, the estimated profit margin of 10% was excessive. It reduced the profit estimation to 3.5% of net credits, acknowledging the nature of unorganized sector transactions.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because it was issued after a lapse of more than 3 years from the end of the assessment year, and the income escaping assessment did not meet the threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs required for such delayed issuance. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had correctly offered the rental income to tax and was able to explain the source of the differential amount in the term deposits. Therefore, both additions made by the AO were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Section 80-IA deduction should be computed by treating the income from eligible business as the sole source. This decision is based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs Reliance Energy Limited.

The CIT(A) rightly set aside the reassessment order and restored the matter to the AO for a denovo reassessment. This was because the assessee had submitted additional evidence for the first time before the CIT(A), which required examination by the AO.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had passed an ex-parte, non-speaking order without considering the ITAT's previous order dated November 12, 2025, in the assessee's own case. This previous order had allowed the assessee's application for original registration from April 1, 2022, and the matter was pending before the CIT(Exemption) for adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(Exemption) and directed the CIT(Exemption) to decide the matter afresh. This decision was to be made after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's own remand report confirmed the search took place only on 27.02.2020, invalidating the assessment framed under Section 153A. The assessment was quashed as a non-est in the eyes of law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal view, considering the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices and the need for substantial justice. The matter was remitted to the AO for denovo reassessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched party, not the date of the search itself. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched party, not the date of the search itself. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched party, not the date of the search itself. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.

The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to afford the assessee one more opportunity to furnish all documentary evidence of its activities before the learned CIT(Exemption). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(Exemption). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to decide the matter afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The specific findings on the merits of the applications for Sections 80G and 12AA were not made, as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched party, not the date of the search itself. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the Assessing Officer of the assessee, not the date of the search in a related group case. The appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched party, not the date of the search itself. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the ten-year period for Section 153C assessments should be counted from the date of recording satisfaction by the AO of the searched party, not the date of the search itself. The assessment years in question were found to be beyond this period.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeal was filed due to an inadvertent error during the e-filing process and that a correct appeal had subsequently been filed and brought to the notice of the Registry. The Senior DR for the revenue had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original assessment or the CIT(A)'s order was decided, as the appeal was withdrawn procedurally. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the set off of the brought forward business loss against the current year's income. The remaining unadjusted loss should be carried forward to subsequent years.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues from earlier assessment years were pending before a coordinate bench. Consequently, the present appeals were disposed of to be decided in accordance with the decision in those earlier years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons for delay to be bonafide. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that FTS cannot be taxed under the residuary Article 22 of the India-Thailand DTAA, especially when the assessee has no Permanent Establishment in India. The Tribunal followed its own prior decisions on the same issue for the assessee.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues from earlier assessment years were pending before a coordinate bench. Consequently, the present appeals were disposed of to be decided in accordance with the decision in those earlier years.