ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid. It relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision stating that the first proviso to Section 149 applies to notices issued before March 31, 2021, and that without an allegation of non-disclosure, the extended period of limitation is not available.

The CIT(A) held that the notice issued under Section 153C was beyond the ten assessment year period prescribed by law, following a Delhi High Court judgment. Therefore, the assessment order was annulled.

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 presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable and cannot be used for framing a regular assessment. Suspicion cannot replace proof, and the revenue cannot deny expenses without contrary material.

The Tribunal held that since the notice was served after April 1, 2021, it should have been treated as a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer's failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 148A renders the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 132(4A) is rebuttable and cannot be used for framing a regular assessment. Suspicion cannot replace proof, and the revenue cannot deny expenses without contrary material.

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 electronic evidence used to frame the assessment was inadmissible. Furthermore, the transaction was considered a loan, potentially falling under Section 269SS, and thus exempt from Section 269ST.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were vitiated due to lack of proper approval under Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were passed without the requisite approval under section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to admit and decide the assessee's additional grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the re-opening of assessment.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee established that cash deposits were from regular business sales, there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of deposits during demonetization. The addition of Rs. 10,66,000/- was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence for the increase in capital, including the sale of property and maturity of FDRs. The addition made by the AO was deleted as the sources were demonstrated to be from the preceding year.

The ITAT held that the PCIT had erred in withdrawing the registration granted to the assessee society. The Tribunal found that the PCIT lacked the necessary jurisdiction and that the procedure followed was illegal, quashing the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular regarding the minimum tax effect was applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected on this ground.

The Tribunal found that while notices were issued, the assessee failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte order. The legal grounds raised by the assessee were not properly dealt with.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was vitiated due to non-application of mind, as the original assessment was already under scrutiny. The addition was made without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts, leading to a potential double addition.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding deemed rental income was debatable at the relevant time. Following the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT Vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were vitiated due to lack of proper approval under Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a genuine misunderstanding of procedural requirements. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the disallowance under Section 14A was to be recalculated and restricted as per the directions of the CIT(A), the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided one more opportunity to the assessee before passing an ex-parte order. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the issue afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The rejection was based on procedural grounds without considering the assessee's circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte and in violation of natural justice as notices were not served on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were vitiated due to lack of proper approval under Section 153D. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish all necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that interest on outstanding receivables to an Associated Enterprise (AE) is an international transaction, but no further adjustment is required if the assessee has already factored in the impact of receivables on working capital. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit for calculating alternate tax under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to justify the creditworthiness and genuineness of the company from whom the amount was received. The incriminating material from search operations and statements of entry operators corroborated the Revenue's view.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's request for withdrawal due to inadvertent filing and bonafide mistake. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) passed an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) passed an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest on outstanding receivables to an Associated Enterprise (AE) is an international transaction, but no further adjustment is required if the assessee has already factored in the impact of receivables on working capital. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit for calculating alternate tax under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record any satisfaction, making the entire proceeding vitiated and void-ab-initio. The AO could not produce any record of satisfaction for the reopening.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish all necessary documents and be heard.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were breached as the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have examined the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, as per Section 12AB(1)(b). The genuineness of donations is to be examined during assessment, not registration. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were barred by limitation as they did not meet the conditions specified in Section 149(1)(b). For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed bad-in-law due to non-compliance with Section 148 and Section 148B. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted as the liabilities were duly acknowledged in the books.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C was a double addition and deleted it. It also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding unaccounted scrap sales and cash salary expenses, finding them to be without merit or misconceived.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 were beyond the six-year limitation period prescribed under Section 153C read with Section 153A. The same reasoning was applied to AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were barred by limitation. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment framed based on this invalid notice was deemed bad in law and void ab initio, leading to the quashing of the reassessment.

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 notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the acquisition of software is capital in nature, the write-off of unusable software licenses, which had become obsolete, should be allowed as an expenditure. The Tribunal sustained the ground raised in the appeal of the assessee regarding this write-off.

The Tribunal found that the AO had made transfer pricing adjustments twice and that some comparable companies selected by the TPO were inappropriate. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that notices issued under Section 148 for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 were beyond the prescribed time limits and did not meet the conditions for reopening beyond three years, quashing these notices. For Assessment Year 2021-22, the addition was restricted by reducing the GP rate. For Assessment Year 2022-23, the assessment proceedings were deemed without jurisdiction. For Assessment Year 2023-24, an addition under Section 41(1) was deleted.