ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the difference in book stock versus physical stock, where book stock was higher, indicated excess consumption and could not be treated as undisclosed investment. For finished goods, excess physical stock was allowed to be explained by undisclosed sales within the business.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of DTAA rates for Dividend Distribution Tax, allowing the refund of excess tax paid. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for depreciation on goodwill, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application due to non-compliance by the assessee. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to contest the rejection. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and order.

The provided text is an excerpt from the beginning of the judgment and does not contain the Tribunal's decision, reasoning, or operative directions. Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning that led to it, the ratio, and the operative directions are not recorded in this portion of the judgment. No issue was expressly left undecided as the decision itself is not present.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to contest the rejection. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and order.

The Tribunal held that the issue of consultancy services being treated as FIS under Article 12(4) of the DTAA has been consistently decided in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches of the ITAT for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2021-22, and even for AY 2022-23. The facts and the nature of services, provided under the same Consulting Service Agreement dated 01.04.2010, are identical. Therefore, respectfully following these precedents, the addition on account of consultancy service fee of Rs. 54,03,06,100/- was directed to be deleted. Regarding support services, the Tribunal noted that this issue has also been decided in favor of the assessee by ITAT's orders for AYs 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22. The Tribunal extracted the reasoning from the ITAT's order for AY 2019-20, which held that support services do not 'make available' any technical knowledge, know-how, or skill to the recipient as contemplated under Article 12(4)(b) of the DTAA. The Tribunal concluded that since the facts have not changed for the present year, the addition of Rs. 77,56,66,346/- on account of support services was also directed to be deleted. Concerning the ground related to the Vivad se Vishwas declaration (Ground 11), the Tribunal found that this issue was also decided in favor of the assessee, referencing an order for AY 2022-23 which followed the ITAT's decision for AY 2019-20 and CBDT Circular No. 9/2020. Therefore, this ground was also decided in favor of the assessee. Grounds 1 and 12 were not specifically adjudicated. Ground 2 was dismissed as not pressed. The operative direction was the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and consider all evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice for AY 2013-14 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the permissible period after the assessee's reply. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the notices were quashed for lack of proper approval from the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii).

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient funds from disclosed rental income to meet household expenses. Therefore, the addition made by the AO on account of low withdrawals was not sustainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the non-compliance of its earlier order to implead the legal heirs and the lack of persuasion from the assessee's side.

The Tribunal held that the notice for AY 2013-14 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the permissible period after the assessee's reply. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the notices were quashed for lack of proper approval from the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not follow the due procedure under the Faceless Regime, particularly Section 144B, and did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) had relied on material already submitted before the AO. The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the CIT(A)'s findings on merits.

The Tribunal held that BIDPL acted as a limited-risk service provider, as it lacked the technical capability and assets to perform the services independently and all significant risks were borne by the AE. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to accept the benchmarking conducted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong clause was a curable defect and the application should be treated as filed under the correct clause. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of identifying the cost of shares sold based on specific share certificates and maintaining separate ledger accounts for each lot was compliant with accounting principles (AS-13). The disallowance of business promotion expenses for luxury watches was partly confirmed, while foreign travel expenses were upheld as not for business purposes.

The Tribunal held that the gifts received were duly credited in the assessee's bank accounts and the source was from an NRI father-in-law, making additions under Section 69A unsustainable. The Tribunal also allowed telescoping benefits for certain confirmed additions.

The Tribunal held that the notice for AY 2013-14 was time-barred as it was issued beyond the permissible period after the assessee's reply. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the notices were quashed for lack of proper approval from the competent authority as required by Section 151(ii).

The Tribunal held that the gifts received were duly credited in the assessee's bank accounts and the source was from an NRI father-in-law, making additions under Section 69A unsustainable. The Tribunal also allowed telescoping benefits for certain confirmed additions.

The Tribunal held that the gifts received were duly credited in the assessee's bank accounts and the source was from an NRI father-in-law, making additions under Section 69A unsustainable. The Tribunal also allowed telescoping benefits for certain confirmed additions.

The Tribunal held that the gifts received were duly credited in the assessee's bank accounts and the source was from an NRI father-in-law, making additions under Section 69A unsustainable. The Tribunal also allowed telescoping benefits for certain confirmed additions.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory even when a return is filed belatedly in response to a section 148 notice. Failure to issue this notice renders the reassessment bad in law and void ab initio.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the ITAT's order in the assessee's own case for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, noting that the facts for the current year were identical. For grounds 2 & 2.1, concerning live content being treated as royalty, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, following its previous decision that live telecast does not qualify as royalty under Article 12 of the DTAA, as it does not involve copyright and lacks the minimum creativity required for copyright protection. For grounds 3 & 4, concerning bundled contracts, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed that 10% of the total receipts under the bundled category would be taxable as royalty, aligning with the previous ITAT order's finding that 10% should be allocated to recorded content, as against the assessee's initial claim of 5%. For ground 5, regarding TDS credit, the Tribunal directed the ACIT to allow the credit as per law. The grounds pertaining to penalty and interest were noted as consequential and not specifically adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that live telecast of sports events does not constitute royalty under the DTAA, and for bundled contracts, a specific allocation (10% in this case) is to be made for the recorded content component taxable as royalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the immediate source of cash deposited in the applicants' bank accounts. The reliance on a previous judgment was distinguished due to the facts of cash deposits in the present case.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and documents. It was felt that the assessee deserved the benefit of doubt and should be allowed to present the necessary facts regarding the impugned property transaction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an assessee claims denial of opportunity and offers to produce evidence, and the authorities below have not provided adequate chances, the appellate authority should allow the assessee to present their case for a fair adjudication. The operative direction is to remand the matter for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the error in filing the application under the wrong section/form was a curable defect. The CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the mistake and examine the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot deem an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests solely for want of further inquiry if the AO has already made inquiries and verifications and reached a conclusion. The power under Section 263 is not for substituting the AO's judgment or conducting fishing inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on presumptions without sufficient material or confirmation from the recipient. The evidence found during the search did not conclusively prove the assessee made the cash payments.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on presumptions without sufficient material or confirmation from the recipient. The evidence found during the search did not conclusively prove the assessee made the cash payments.

The Tribunal held that since the agreement was not signed by the assessee and no independent verification was done by the AO to corroborate the transaction, the addition made on the basis of documents found from a third party's possession was deleted. The same logic was applied to the subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on presumptions without sufficient material or confirmation from the recipient. The evidence found during the search did not conclusively prove the assessee made the cash payments.

The Tribunal held that the gifts received were duly credited in the assessee's bank accounts and the source was from an NRI father-in-law, making additions under Section 69A unsustainable. The Tribunal also allowed telescoping benefits for certain confirmed additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the consultancy services were related to oil and gas extraction and thus taxable under Section 44BB. The Tribunal found no reason to differ with the CIT(A)'s findings based on the admitted evidence and legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that since the co-ordinate benches had already accepted the diamond sales as genuine transactions for other members of the group, the allegation of accommodation entries against the assessee was unfounded. Therefore, the addition of commission income was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying diamond sales by the K.P. Group were already accepted as genuine by a coordinate bench, the allegation of the assessee facilitating accommodation entries and earning commission on them had no basis. Therefore, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying diamond sales by the K.P. Group were already accepted as genuine by a coordinate bench, the allegation of the assessee facilitating accommodation entries and earning commission on them had no basis. Therefore, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the agreement was not signed by the assessee and no independent verification was done by the AO to corroborate the transaction, the addition made on the basis of documents found from a third party's possession was deleted. The same logic was applied to the subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction by submitting documents like share certificates, bank statements, FIRC, and a valuation report. The AO had failed to properly verify the submitted documents and follow the DRP's directions.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of earlier withdrawals from the assessee's bank account, which were duly reflected in the bank statements. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a salaried individual, is not statutorily required to maintain a cash book, and the explanation of prior withdrawals was reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of identifying the cost of shares sold based on specific share certificates and maintaining separate ledger accounts for each lot was compliant with accounting principles (AS-13). The disallowance of business promotion expenses for luxury watches was partly confirmed, while foreign travel expenses were upheld as not for business purposes.

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's inability to trace the assessee and serve notice. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, granting liberty to the Revenue to seek revival if the assessee is eventually traced.

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's inability to trace the assessee for service of notice. Since there was no representation from the assessee and no reasonable possibility of serving the notice, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's findings regarding the DAPE were not relevant for the current assessment year as the evidence (emails) pertained to an earlier period. Following its own prior decisions, the Tribunal ruled that no PE or DAPE existed for the assessee in the current year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance of bogus donation to Rs. 6 lacs, finding it logical and legal. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on the time deposit, noting the assessee's substantial income. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on unsubstantiated claims, as the Revenue failed to rebut the findings.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the grounds raised by the revenue were not tenable and did not emanate from the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had meticulously examined the facts and materials, and there was no illegality or perversity in their appreciation.

The Tribunal held that it is common practice for married daughters, especially those living abroad, to keep jewellery with their parents. Therefore, the restriction of ownership to only 70 grams by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's inability to trace the assessee and serve notice. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, granting liberty to the Revenue to seek revival if the assessee is eventually traced.

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's inability to trace the assessee for service of notice. Since there was no representation from the assessee and no reasonable possibility of serving the notice, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's inability to trace the assessee for service of notice. Since there was no representation from the assessee and no reasonable possibility of serving the notice, the appeals were dismissed.