ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed furnished submissions and documents which were not considered by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing exceptional circumstances. It held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the appeals were dismissed without proper adjudication on merits and without sufficient proof of notice service. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the order to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of amended provisions to Section 251 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity. The assessment year in question was correctly held to be outside the 10-year block period based on the satisfaction note date and the handing over of seized materials.

For unabated assessment years (2017-18 & 2018-19), additions based on GP estimation without incriminating material were deleted. For the abated assessment year (2019-20), the CIT(A)'s restriction of GP estimation was upheld.

The CIT(A) set aside the reassessment order to the AO for fresh adjudication, as the assessee had submitted additional evidence. The Revenue appealed, arguing the CIT(A) should have decided on merits. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was empowered to set aside the matter as the reassessment was a best judgment assessment under Section 144.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. On merits, the Tribunal deleted the penalty related to the interest disallowance as the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT, and also deleted the penalty on subsidy reclassification as it was a debatable issue.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was indeed barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the 'surviving period' as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajiv Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

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 the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid as the conditions stipulated in Section 149(1)(b) were not met. The estimated income did not fall under the categories of 'asset', 'expenditure', or 'entry in books of account'.

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 the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

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 satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

For unabated assessment years (2017-18 & 2018-19), additions based on GP estimation without incriminating material were deleted. For the abated assessment year (2019-20), the CIT(A)'s restriction of GP estimation was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable and sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte orders by the AO and CIT(A) were passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, as there was no proof of notice service. This resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded for Section 153C assessments in Vinod Kumar Maheshwari's case was invalid as it incorrectly applied the 'belongs to' clause meant for assets other than documents. For Krishan Kumar Maheshwari, assessments were quashed due to being time-barred and for falling below a pecuniary threshold.

The Tribunal found that the appeals were dismissed without proper adjudication on merits and without sufficient proof of notice service. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without proper adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery found was within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and supported by judicial precedents regarding family customs and gifts. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

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.

For unabated assessment years (2017-18 & 2018-19), additions based on GP estimation without incriminating material were deleted. For the abated assessment year (2019-20), the CIT(A)'s restriction of GP estimation was upheld.

For unabated assessment years (2017-18 & 2018-19), additions based on GP estimation without incriminating material were deleted. For the abated assessment year (2019-20), the CIT(A)'s restriction of GP estimation was upheld.

The CIT(A) set aside the reassessment order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's submission of additional evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) rightly exercised powers under Section 251(1)(a) in cases of best judgment assessment.

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 found no interference warranted in the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the transactions as having embedded profit. However, it reduced the profit percentage on these bogus transactions from 10% to 5%.

The Tribunal held that once the addition under Section 69A was deleted by the CIT(A) as the transaction was found to be genuine, the consequential addition under Section 69C for commission was unsustainable. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 40,500/- under Section 69C was directed to be deleted.

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 since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were already quashed by a higher bench of the ITAT, the penalty order under Section 271D could not survive. The penalty proceedings are dependent on the validity of the underlying assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its burden under Section 68 of the Act to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions, both before the lower authorities and the Tribunal. The reassessment proceedings were found to be validly initiated.

For unabated assessment years (2017-18 & 2018-19), additions based on GP estimation without incriminating material were deleted. For the abated assessment year (2019-20), the CIT(A)'s restriction of GP estimation was upheld.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee attempted to explain cash deposits and gross profit, there were some unexplained elements. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 2.8 lakh was made for cash deposits and Rs. 10 lakh for gross profit, considering the larger interest of justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee sufficient opportunities to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions for effective opportunities to be granted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee sufficient opportunities to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions for effective opportunities to be granted.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had attempted to explain the deposits, some element of unexplained cash could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of 5% of the deposits was deemed appropriate as profit embedded.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had attempted to explain the cash deposits, a complete explanation was not satisfactory. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakh was deemed just and proper. The Tribunal also directed that the addition should be taxed under normal provisions and not under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid for delayed license fee payment was revenue expenditure. It also held that intangible assets acquired under a slump sale agreement were 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no contrary facts presented by the Revenue to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. The CIT(A) had allowed relief after factual verification of the details filed by the assessee.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by rejecting additional evidence without following established jurisprudence and prioritizing technicalities over substantive justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had some explanation for the cash deposits, it was not entirely satisfactory. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 2 lakh was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal also directed that the addition should be taxed under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE, following a High Court ruling.