ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the principle of natural justice was breached as the assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and was not given adequate opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo determination.

The Tribunal held that an assessment framed under Section 153C of the Act, where the satisfaction note was recorded after April 1, 2021, is bad in law. This is because Section 153C(3) states that the section does not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021, making such assessments void ab initio.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided some basic identification details for the lender and bank statements showing transactions through banking channels. However, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender were not fully established. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were not sustainable. The reasoning was based on the assessee's contention that the Assessing Officer had failed to record the requisite satisfaction as per the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the landmark decision of Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC), which mandates that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that seized documents have a "bearing" on the determination of taxable income. Since this was not done in the assessee's case, the assessment was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that a failure to record the mandatory satisfaction under Section 153C renders the assessment invalid. All other pleadings were rendered academic. The operative direction was to quash the assessment.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the additions were based on the same search and material as in the case of Sanjay Jain, where similar additions were deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the additions were based on the same search and material as in the case of Sanjay Jain, where similar additions were deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source. Since the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels, the provisions of Section 69C were not applicable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were not sustainable. The reasoning was based on the assessee's contention that the Assessing Officer had failed to record the requisite satisfaction as per the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the landmark decision of Saksham Commodities Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC), which mandates that the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that seized documents have a "bearing" on the determination of taxable income. Since this was not done in the assessee's case, the assessment was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that a failure to record the mandatory satisfaction under Section 153C renders the assessment invalid. All other pleadings were rendered academic. The operative direction was to quash the assessment.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals by sustaining additions to a certain extent and dismissed the revenue's appeals. For unexplained expenditures, the Tribunal allowed set-off and telescoping against sustained income from earlier years, deleting the separate addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source. Since the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a signature on the Final Assessment Order renders it non-est and invalid. The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench decision in Outsystems Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, which in turn cited Reuters Asia Pacific Ltd v. Dy. CIT, International Tax. The reasoning was that signing an assessment order is a mandatory requirement, not a procedural formality that can be cured subsequently. An unsigned order is considered incomplete and invalid from its inception. The Tribunal noted that Section 292B of the Act, which cures procedural defects, does not grant immunity from non-compliance with statutory provisions like the mandatory signing of an order. Therefore, the unsigned assessment order served on the assessee was quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the sales and was involved in providing accommodation entries. However, the addition at 6% was not fully justified. The Tribunal directed a lump-sum addition of 3% of the sales.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging potential communication gaps. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, acknowledging potential communication gaps. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper adjudication. Furthermore, the quantum appeal was set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO. Therefore, the penalty levied should also be set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal agreed that low income of lenders alone is insufficient to doubt creditworthiness, especially when transactions are through banking channels and supported by documentation.

The Tribunal acknowledged the department's responsibility for not flagging inoperative PANs in its system. It directed the matter back to the AO for de novo determination, provided the seller declared the transaction and paid taxes. The Tribunal also suggested the revenue verify the seller's tax compliance.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of entire purchases, taxing the whole amount was also not justified as corresponding sales were accepted. A profit margin of 5% on disputed purchases was deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of entire purchases, taxing the whole amount was also not justified as corresponding sales were accepted. A profit margin of 5% on disputed purchases was deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) were bad in law and without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 148B of the Act, specifically regarding obtaining prior approval. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) were bad in law and without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 148B of the Act, specifically regarding obtaining prior approval. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's only source of income was business and there was no unexplained source, the addition should be treated as normal business income, not income from unexplained sources under Section 69C read with Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not afforded a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain discrepancies. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment year was unabated, any addition must be based on specific incriminating material. The change in accounting method by the Assessing Officer was not supported by such material.

The Tribunal found it justified to give the assessee an opportunity to contest the issue on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing and a new order.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source, not when the expenditure is recorded in books and payments are made through banking channels. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court judgment, the Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not afforded a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to explain discrepancies. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with directions to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was made beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as this issue was not part of the original reasons for selection. Therefore, the disallowance was not tenable.

The Tribunal held that the second appeal filed electronically was a duplicate and therefore not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer lacked the inherent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C as the assessee's returned income exceeded the prescribed monetary limits for non-corporate entities in metro cities. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny by examining a loan transaction unrelated to the 'increase in capital' reason for selection. The AO should have confined the examination to the specified issue without prior approval to expand the scope.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source. Since the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source. Since the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source. Since the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided some basic identification details for the lender and bank statements showing transactions through banking channels. However, the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness of the lender were not fully established. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully establish the source of cash deposits, the Revenue's disallowance was not entirely justified. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 2 lakh was deemed appropriate. Additionally, the Tribunal directed that the addition should be taxed under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE, following a Madras High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source. Since the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels, Section 69C was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer lacked the inherent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C as the assessee's returned income exceeded the prescribed monetary limits for non-corporate entities in metro cities. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that there was no credit of Rs. 40,00,000/- in the assessee's bank account. Therefore, Section 68 of the Income Tax Act could not be invoked for a non-existent transaction.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) were bad in law and without jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 148B of the Act, specifically regarding obtaining prior approval. Consequently, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked when the assessee incurs expenditure and offers no satisfactory explanation about its source, not when the expenditure is recorded in books and payments are made through banking channels. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69C was deleted.