ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The ITAT condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, with directions for the assessee to be vigilant and make requisite compliance.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of profit on work-in-progress was not justified as the assessee consistently recognized revenue based on customer approval and prior years' assessments accepted this method. The cessation of liability and disallowance of provision for expenses were also deleted as the CIT(A) had correctly appreciated the facts.

The Tribunal restored all three grounds (5, 6, and 7) back to the Assessing Officer/TPO. This was to allow for verification of the assessee's claims regarding corrected margins, segmental financials, and working capital/risk adjustments, ensuring a fair decision.

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the denial of exemption under Section 10(1) for AY 2013-14 was identical to the facts and claims considered by a Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also observed that for AY 2015-16, the Assessing Officer did not make the necessary verifications as directed by the Dispute Resolution Panel and made additions without discussion. Both parties agreed that the matter should be set aside to the Assessing Officer for verifying the DRP's directions and passing a necessary order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issues raised in Ground No. 3 of the appeal for AY 2015-16 to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law after verifying the DRP's directions. Ground No. 3 of the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The appeals were partly allowed.

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 held that the lower authorities did not consider the assessee's socio-economic status and cash in hand for the cash component of Rs. 5.60 lakhs. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper.

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, 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeals. This was primarily based on the tax effect of the appeals being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024.

The Tribunal held that the sales were genuine, supported by documentary evidence like GST returns and Form 26AS, and payments were received through banking channels. The Tribunal found no defects in the purchases made by the assessee for these sales.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to controvert the factual observations with cogent evidence. The additions were sustained based on a revised calculation of turnover and net profit margin.

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 in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the issues after providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the issues after providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the explanation of change in tax consultant to be a reasonable cause. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the explanation of change in tax consultant to be a reasonable cause. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction, violating CBDT instructions. Consequently, the entire assessment proceeding was vitiated and void ab initio.

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 restored the issue of excess depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, allowing the assessee's appeal partly for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 14A and Section 80IA disallowances were upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 41(1) was unjustified as there was no cessation of liability. The Tribunal also found that the reclassification of loans from sundry creditors to capital account was a legitimate journal entry and not fresh income. The issue of TDS and self-assessment tax was also resolved as it was not paid from undisclosed sources and was not claimed as an expense.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, allowing the assessee's appeal partly for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 14A and Section 80IA disallowances were upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, allowing the assessee's appeal partly for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 14A and Section 80IA disallowances were upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excess depreciation to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification, allowing the assessee's appeal partly for statistical purposes. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 14A and Section 80IA disallowances were upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C, incriminating material found during a search must have a bearing on the determination of total income. The Tribunal found that the excel sheet data did not exclusively relate to the assessee and that some transactions pertained to other individuals, making additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) should be considered for each educational institution separately, not on an aggregate basis. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C, incriminating material found during a search must have a bearing on the determination of total income. The Tribunal found that the excel sheet data did not exclusively relate to the assessee and that some transactions pertained to other individuals, making additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C, incriminating material found during a search must have a bearing on the determination of total income. The Tribunal found that the excel sheet data did not exclusively relate to the assessee and that some transactions pertained to other individuals, making additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that for proceedings under Section 153C, incriminating material found during a search must have a bearing on the determination of total income. The Tribunal found that the excel sheet data did not exclusively relate to the assessee and that some transactions pertained to other individuals, making additions unsustainable.

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 held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was invalid as it was consolidated, lacked year-wise bifurcation of incriminating material, and did not demonstrate application of mind. Consequently, the proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

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 in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not satisfied, particularly concerning issues not forming the subject matter of the reassessment.

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 held that the lower authorities could not have levied the penalty as the assessee had previously succeeded in High Court decisions stating that AMP transactions are not covered under section 92B. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the bad debts were correctly written off and offered as income in prior years. The Tribunal also agreed that gifts and temple expenses were incurred for business purposes, such as maintaining employee morale and business relationships, and were thus deductible.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the matters were restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT's revised circular on monetary limits for appeals is applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The tribunal held that the NFAC was not justified in passing an ex parte order. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any cogent evidence or explanation to justify the source of the cash deposits. The assessee's explanation was found to be implausible and an afterthought.

The Tribunal held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the appeal as the situs of the Assessing Officer is the decisive factor. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal before the appropriate bench.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the matters were restored back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C were invalid as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The assessment years were considered unabated, and thus, additions could only be made based on specific seized material.

The Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 153C were invalid as they were not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The assessment years were considered unabated, and thus, additions could only be made based on specific seized material.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10-IC is directory, not mandatory, citing a Gujarat High Court decision. Therefore, the assessee's grievance is found to have merit.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for adequate opportunities for the assessee.

The Tribunal found that communication gaps might have occurred due to the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had provided some evidence for the purchases, it could not fully prove the physical movement of goods. The Revenue's attempt to disbelieve the vendor entirely was also not fully justified. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 5 lakh was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority did not decide the issues on merits. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed a clerical mistake in filing the original return and that a revised return along with a rectification application was not considered. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had prima facie discharged its onus, it failed to prove the physical movement of goods. The Revenue's discrediting of the seller was also not fully justified. A lump-sum addition of 5% of the purchase amount was deemed appropriate.