ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiries and relied solely on information received. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence for purchases, sales, and loan repayments through banking channels.

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be allowed credit for the gold based on CBDT Instructions and a purchase bill. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without an effective hearing and in violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, citing the assessee's lack of knowledge of tax laws and issues with notice service. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It was held that the assessee did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and therefore, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of justice. It was held that the assessee did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and therefore, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot reopen the case without credible material to establish escapement of income, and that the addition under Section 68 for purchases already reflected in sales is a double addition. The Tribunal found the proceedings initiated by the AO to be without credible evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot reopen the case without credible material to establish escapement of income, and that the addition under Section 68 for purchases already reflected in sales is a double addition. The Tribunal found the proceedings initiated by the AO to be without credible evidence.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty levied on estimated additions is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty levied on estimated additions is unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty in question lost its substratum.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish his status as a legal representative under the Act and CPC. Therefore, the appeals were considered premature.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish his status as a legal representative under the Act and CPC. Therefore, the appeals were considered premature.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without an effective hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.

Since the quantum addition order has been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty based on that addition is not sustainable at this stage. Therefore, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely based on electronic evidence and statements without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the dates and evidence presented by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal observed that while the option in the return was exercised within the due date, the Form 10IC was filed belatedly. Considering the facts and judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that even if a loan or advance is subsequently repaid, it can still be treated as 'deemed dividend' under Section 2(22)(e) if the other conditions are met. The conditions of Section 2(22)(e) were found to be fulfilled in this case.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) admitted additional evidence from the assessee, finding sufficient cause for not producing it earlier. Based on this evidence, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO on account of sales, purchases, and unsecured loans.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but decided that the matter deserved to be re-adjudicated by the AO. The assessment order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the explanation genuine. To prevent miscarriage of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders. This was based on the AO's failure to record satisfaction that the escaped income would exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, a prerequisite for initiating action under Section 153C for extended periods.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders. This was based on the AO's failure to record satisfaction that the escaped income would exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, a prerequisite for initiating action under Section 153C for the extended period.

The Tribunal held that repayment of loans through banking channels does not absolve the assessee if the initial transactions were with accommodation entry providers. The Tribunal confirmed the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and defective, as it was a common approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on such approval were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and defective, as it was a common approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on such approval were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and defective, as it was a common approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on such approval were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and defective, as it was a common approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on such approval were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and defective, as it was a common approval for multiple assessees and assessment years without application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders passed based on such approval were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. While acknowledging the assessee's carelessness, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the quantum matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeal was allowed as a consequence, with liberty to revive it if additions are made.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the quantum matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The penalty appeal was allowed as a consequence, with liberty to revive it if additions are made.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's inconsistent approach in disallowing and then re-allowing the brought forward loss was erroneous. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that additions for the earlier assessment years (2020-21 & 2021-22) based on extrapolation were not justifiable. For the later assessment years (2022-23 & 2023-24), the Tribunal allowed a net profit element on the detected unaccounted sales instead of the entire sales addition.

The Tribunal held that additions for the earlier assessment years (2020-21 & 2021-22) based on extrapolation were not justifiable. For the later assessment years (2022-23 & 2023-24), the Tribunal allowed a net profit element on the detected unaccounted sales instead of the entire sales addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the approval obtained from the PCIT for issuing the Section 148 notices did not pertain to the assessees in question. Consequently, the notices were deemed bad in law and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that additions for the earlier assessment years (2020-21 & 2021-22) based on extrapolation were not justifiable. For the later assessment years (2022-23 & 2023-24), the Tribunal allowed a net profit element on the detected unaccounted sales instead of the entire sales addition.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO had passed the reassessment order after examining the evidence and submissions of the assessee, and therefore, the order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) passed a cryptic order without proper examination and in the absence of a response. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) passed a cryptic order without proper examination and in the absence of a response. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.

For assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, the Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153A were invalid as the additions were not based on any incriminating seized material. The Tribunal found that the WhatsApp chat and search statements relied upon by the AO did not point to any undisclosed income or bogus claims. The Tribunal also noted that admissions made during search or survey do not carry evidentiary value as per CBDT Circular dated 10.03.2003. The estimation of GP by the AO was not based on incriminating material as required for unabated assessments post-search. Therefore, the additions of GP estimation were deleted. The Revenue's appeals for these years were dismissed, and the assessee's cross-appeals were allowed. For assessment year 2019-20, which was an abated assessment year, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the GP estimation to 6%. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had exercised his powers co-terminus with the AO and the estimation did not warrant interference. Both the Revenue's and assessee's appeals for this year were rejected.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.