ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

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

The Tribunal held that the commission income earned by the assessee from domestic airlines for the domestic leg of travel is directly connected to the operation of aircraft in international traffic and is therefore exempt from taxation in India under Article 8(1) read with Article 8(4) of the India-France DTAA. The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2019-20 (IT(IT)A No. 01/Del/2025). The reasoning was that the entire journey, including the domestic leg, is arranged by the assessee, even if the domestic travel is undertaken by a domestic carrier. The commission retained is part of the cost of tickets for the entire travel arranged by the assessee. Consequently, the addition made by the AO on account of commission income was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not shown any distinguishing features for the impugned assessment year. The appeal was allowed in terms of this deletion. The Tribunal also directed the AO to expeditiously dispose of a rectification petition filed by the assessee regarding TDS credit.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding cash deposits, making a lump-sum addition of Rs. 25 lakhs. For the investment in property, the Tribunal found the source plausible and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was based on fundamentally wrong and inconsistent facts, indicating a total non-application of mind by the revenue authorities. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found the reopening to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee declared the amount as business turnover under Section 44AD, the addition of the same amount as unexplained money under Section 69A was not justified. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was vitiated as it was signed manually despite the assessment being conducted through e-proceedings, which violates CBDT instructions requiring digital signatures. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed without issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid. The Tribunal noted that it is not disputed that the assessee filed a return of income in response to the notice under section 148. It was incumbent upon the AO to issue a statutory notice under section 143(2) before completing the assessment. The records did not indicate that such a notice was ever issued. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had specifically raised this objection before the DRP, which did not decide the issue. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon and CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, the Tribunal reiterated that the issuance of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory and its complete absence renders the assessment invalid. The Tribunal further clarified that section 292BB of the Act does not cure a complete absence of notice, even if the assessee participated in the proceedings. Since the Revenue failed to produce any material to show that the notice under section 143(2) was issued, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment order. The addition of Rs. 2,13,000 was consequently deleted.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was justified. Following the decisions of co-ordinate benches in Heidelberg Cement AG v. ACIT and Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal concluded that Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) are to be considered as bonds for the purpose of Section 194LD of the Act. The reasoning was that in the absence of a specific definition of 'debenture' in the Act, its common parlance meaning, which includes bonds, should be applied. The Tribunal noted that the PCCIT (Intl. Tax) had also clarified in a letter dated 30.11.2017 that for the purpose of Section 194LD, debentures and bonds are to be considered the same. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 15/2014 and RBI regulations for Masala Bonds was misplaced as these pertained to Section 194LC and overseas issuances, respectively, and not to Section 194LD and domestic NCDs. The Tribunal also noted that Section 194LD prescribes its own interest rate limits, different from those mentioned in the circulars relied upon by the AO. Therefore, no interference was called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording reasonable opportunities and without properly adjudicating the issues. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was justified. Following the decisions of co-ordinate benches in Heidelberg Cement AG v. ACIT and Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd. Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal concluded that Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) are to be considered as bonds for the purpose of Section 194LD of the Act. The reasoning was that in the absence of a specific definition of 'debenture' in the Act, its common parlance meaning, which includes bonds, should be applied. The Tribunal noted that the PCCIT (Intl. Tax) had also clarified in a letter dated 30.11.2017 that for the purpose of Section 194LD, debentures and bonds are to be considered the same. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 15/2014 and RBI regulations for Masala Bonds was misplaced as these pertained to Section 194LC and overseas issuances, respectively, and not to Section 194LD and domestic NCDs. The Tribunal also noted that Section 194LD prescribes its own interest rate limits, different from those mentioned in the circulars relied upon by the AO. Therefore, no interference was called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and CIT(A). It found that the assessee did not deny signing the bank account opening form and Income Tax Returns, and no statement was recorded by authorities regarding the fraud complaint. Therefore, the claim of fraudulent transactions was not established.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order dated 09.06.2025 is void and therefore quashed. The reasoning was based on the discrepancy between the notice issued and the penalty order passed. The notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 20.05.2025 was issued solely for the charge of 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. However, the AO, in the penalty order, invoked both the charges of 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT, which states that 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' and 'concealment of income' are distinct charges. Furthermore, the Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, which mandates that a penalty order must be based only on the grounds for which penalty proceedings were initiated, and penalty cannot be imposed on fresh grounds without prior notice to the assessee. Since the assessee was not put on notice for the charge of concealment of income, the penalty order invoking both charges was deemed invalid. The operative direction is to quash the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte, the matter should be reconsidered. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were beyond the 10-year block period for assessment under Section 153C, as per the Delhi High Court's decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the notice and consequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an ITO without the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice was quashed.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording reasonable opportunities and without properly adjudicating the issues. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond three years requires approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, not just the PCIT. Therefore, the notice issued was defective and the reassessment proceedings were void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that amounts received by a firm from its partners do not attract section 68 addition, as such amounts should be taxed in the hands of the partners. The assessee had also provided sufficient documentation to explain the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loans.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not adequately presented its case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable because the Assessing Officer made no addition based on the specific reasons recorded for reopening. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents that quash reopening when the grounds for it are not substantiated in the assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, stating that crucial evidence cannot be denied on technicalities. It further held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan creditor details, and the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the permissible time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the permissible time limits under the amended Section 149 of the Act, and the conditions for reopening beyond three years (specifically, income represented in the form of an asset) were not met. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed telescoping benefits for cash found during the search, preventing double additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were beyond the 10-year block period for assessment under Section 153C, as per the Delhi High Court's decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the notice and consequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide cogent material to prove the transaction was non-genuine, relying on the assessee's evidence and various judicial precedents. The additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening cases involving escaped income represented in the form of an asset. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was flawed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had given an advance to M/s PHV Securities Pvt. Ltd. which was subsequently refunded, the receipt could not be treated as an unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal decided that a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases would be just and proper, without setting a precedent. The assessee's book entries to this extent were rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence, stating that crucial evidence cannot be denied on technicalities. It further held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan creditor details, and the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal, considering that a coordinate bench had, on identical facts, remanded the matter back to the file of the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh assessment for AY 2024-25 (ITA No.7619/Del/2025, order dated 23.04.2026), decided to follow the same course of action. The Tribunal extracted relevant portions of the prior order, highlighting that the earlier appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) for delay, despite the assessee's explanation regarding lack of clarity on taxability until a favourable High Court decision. The prior order emphasized that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the JAO for denovo consideration on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the file of the JAO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case at this stage. The decision for the lead case (IT(IT)A No.86/Del/2025) was held to apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining eight matters, where similar delays had not been condoned and appeals were dismissed in limine. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the denial of registration for AY 2018-19 was solely on a technical ground, not on the merits of the trust's charitable objects. Therefore, registration under sections 12AA and 80G should be granted from AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the denial of registration for AY 2018-19 was solely on a technical ground, not on the merits of the trust's charitable objects. Therefore, registration under sections 12AA and 80G should be granted from AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical, without application of mind, and vitiated the entire assessment. Consequently, the penalty order based on the enhanced income was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the AO and providing an opportunity for verification. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the issue on merits and law to the Assessing Officer for a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal, considering that a coordinate bench had, on identical facts, remanded the matter back to the file of the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh assessment for AY 2024-25 (ITA No.7619/Del/2025, order dated 23.04.2026), decided to follow the same course of action. The Tribunal extracted relevant portions of the prior order, highlighting that the earlier appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) for delay, despite the assessee's explanation regarding lack of clarity on taxability until a favourable High Court decision. The prior order emphasized that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the JAO for denovo consideration on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the file of the JAO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case at this stage. The decision for the lead case (IT(IT)A No.86/Del/2025) was held to apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining eight matters, where similar delays had not been condoned and appeals were dismissed in limine. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on the assessee's submission without verifying it from the ITR or other documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the investor company was duly assessed to tax and had responded to notices under Section 133(6) by furnishing requisite documents. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.

The Tribunal, considering that a coordinate bench had, on identical facts, remanded the matter back to the file of the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh assessment for AY 2024-25 (ITA No.7619/Del/2025, order dated 23.04.2026), decided to follow the same course of action. The Tribunal extracted relevant portions of the prior order, highlighting that the earlier appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) for delay, despite the assessee's explanation regarding lack of clarity on taxability until a favourable High Court decision. The prior order emphasized that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the JAO for denovo consideration on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the file of the JAO for fresh assessment. The Tribunal explicitly refrained from commenting on the merits of the case at this stage. The decision for the lead case (IT(IT)A No.86/Del/2025) was held to apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining eight matters, where similar delays had not been condoned and appeals were dismissed in limine. No issue was expressly left undecided.