ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that maintenance charges received under separate agreements should be treated as business income. It also held that interest claimed on loans for property acquisition and construction is allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to provide the necessary documentary evidence and comply with the requirements.

The Tribunal held that as per the first proviso to section 153C and settled judicial pronouncements, the commencement date for computing the six assessment years is the date of receipt of seized materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Therefore, the assessment year 2016-17 was beyond the permissible period.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay, citing principles of substantial justice over technicalities. It found the assessee's reasons for delay plausible and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and perused the documents, including the additional evidence. It found that the assessee was non-compliant before the AO and had made only partial compliance before the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal was persuaded by the assessee's assertion that it was now in a position to furnish necessary documents to justify the genuineness of the impugned transactions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to consider all relevant documents that would be filed by the assessee and pass a reasoned order. The Tribunal did not decide the issues on merit but allowed the appeals for statistical purposes to facilitate a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that maintenance charges received under separate agreements should be treated as business income. It also held that interest claimed on loans for property acquisition and construction is allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying assessment was quashed, the penalty levied under section 270A had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction recorded for initiating the Section 153C assessments was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material belonged to, pertained to, or related to the assessee. This non-compliance was considered fatal to the validity of the assessments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction recorded for initiating the Section 153C assessments was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material belonged to, pertained to, or related to the assessee. This non-compliance was considered fatal to the validity of the assessments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction recorded for initiating the Section 153C assessments was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material belonged to, pertained to, or related to the assessee. This non-compliance was considered fatal to the validity of the assessments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction recorded for initiating the Section 153C assessments was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material belonged to, pertained to, or related to the assessee. This non-compliance was considered fatal to the validity of the assessments.

The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment initiated under section 147 read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on a search action on M/s M3M Group of cases and statements from directors of certain companies. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted any independent enquiry or investigation before forming the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal relied on a co-ordinate bench's order for the preceding assessment year (2014-15) in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 2304/Del/2025), which had quashed identical reopening on the grounds of borrowed satisfaction. The Tribunal also referred to various High Court and ITAT judgments emphasizing the need for independent application of mind by the AO. Consequently, all grounds of appeal concerning merits were rendered academic. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction recorded for initiating the Section 153C assessments was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material belonged to, pertained to, or related to the assessee. This non-compliance was considered fatal to the validity of the assessments.

The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 115BBE is for transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Based on this, the tax effect was found to be less than the minimum threshold of Rs. 60 lakhs specified by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal is consequential to the quantum appeal. Since the quantum appeal is still pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeal should also be restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not sustainable in law because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening reasons. This failure violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not appropriately explored the nexus between the assessee and the seized material. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not sustainable in law because the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening reasons. This failure violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income is earned, and the amendment to Section 14A is prospective. It also held that notional interest on advances to subsidiaries cannot be taxed without invoking specific provisions.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition for notional rental income without cogent evidence of the property being let out. It considered multiple floors in a single building used for self-occupation as a single residential unit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine, especially after receiving a partly favorable remand report. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s approach was not in concurrence with the facts and principles of law.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking, ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for concealment of income was not sustainable on the grounds of estimation of GP and unsubstantiated material from loose sheets. The penalty was accordingly deleted.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153C were illegal, void-ab-initio, and quashed them because the satisfaction notes were recorded after April 1, 2021, when section 153C was no longer operative for searches initiated on or after that date.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153C were illegal, void-ab-initio, and quashed them because the satisfaction notes were recorded after April 1, 2021, when section 153C was no longer operative for searches initiated on or after that date.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153C were illegal, void-ab-initio, and quashed them because the satisfaction notes were recorded after April 1, 2021, when section 153C was no longer operative for searches initiated on or after that date.

The Tribunal held that since the benefit of Section 115BAB was allowed in the preceding assessment year where the assessee earned revenue, there was no reason to deny it in the current year if the assessee remained eligible.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153C were illegal, void-ab-initio, and quashed them because the satisfaction notes were recorded after April 1, 2021, when section 153C was no longer operative for searches initiated on or after that date.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153C were illegal, void-ab-initio, and quashed them because the satisfaction notes were recorded after April 1, 2021, when section 153C was no longer operative for searches initiated on or after that date.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153C were illegal, void-ab-initio, and quashed them because the satisfaction notes were recorded after April 1, 2021, when section 153C was no longer operative for searches initiated on or after that date.

The Tribunal held that assessments framed under section 153C were illegal, void-ab-initio, and quashed them because the satisfaction notes were recorded after April 1, 2021, when section 153C was no longer operative for searches initiated on or after that date.

The Tribunal held that section 154 rectification proceedings are only for correcting apparent mistakes and not for conducting detailed inquiries. Therefore, the rectification order was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the initial notice. This lack of specificity vitiated the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were set aside for fresh consideration by the CIT(A), and the penalty appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution, the penalty also needs to be set aside for fresh consideration by the CIT(A) after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for under-reporting of income, computed on an estimated basis, is not justified. It noted that the AO did not specify the clause of Section 270A(2) and failed to discuss how the case was not covered by Section 270A(6) regarding estimated income.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's quantum appeal is still pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeal, being consequential, should also follow suit. Therefore, the penalty appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of investment, which included loans and gifts from family members, and had provided supporting documentation. The addition was made solely because the assessee did not file a revised return to correct the investment figure.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and perused the documents, including the additional evidence. It found that the assessee was non-compliant before the AO and had made only partial compliance before the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal was persuaded by the assessee's assertion that it was now in a position to furnish necessary documents to justify the genuineness of the impugned transactions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside both impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the file of the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to consider all relevant documents that would be filed by the assessee and pass a reasoned order. The Tribunal did not decide the issues on merit but allowed the appeals for statistical purposes to facilitate a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the TPO wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter X of the Income Tax Act for AMP expenses. Following jurisdictional precedents, it was decided that in the absence of a specific transaction for brand promotion between the assessee and its associated enterprise, no transfer pricing adjustment could be made.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the requisite approval of the PCCIT/CCIT as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than 3 years had elapsed. Therefore, the notice was invalid and quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions were based on material impounded during a survey, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) was fundamentally defective. The assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for SBN deposits, holding that the cash belonged to principals and was subsequently transferred. The Tribunal also directed the AO to recompute commission income at 1% on gross deposits, partly allowing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was vitiated. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this approval was quashed.

The Tribunal held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. The amendment to Section 292BC, which validates defective approvals, is not applicable as the approval was granted prior to its effective date.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make additions based solely on 'dumb documents' without corroborative evidence or independent inquiry. For other seized documents, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to allow peak credit addition and telescoping of cash found.

The Tribunal held that once a transaction or its components are covered under an Advance Pricing Agreement (APA), it is binding on both the Department and the assessee. Disallowing the expenditure under Section 37(1) on grounds of lack of business expediency would nullify the effect of the APA.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo examination of the evidence filed by the assessee. The AO was directed to grant sufficient opportunity to the assessee for making submissions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to submit the relevant documents and be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a hearing.

The Tribunal held that a common approval granted mechanically for multiple assessment years and assessees under Section 153D vitiates the entire assessment. The amendment to Section 292BC, which validates defective approvals, is not applicable as the approval was granted prior to its effective date.