ITAT Delhi Judgments — May 2026

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 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 penalty proceedings were vitiated because the Assessing Officer's show-cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the limb under which the penalty was being levied. This procedural defect was considered fatal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment made pursuant to this time-barred notice was deemed bad in law and void-ab-initio, and thus quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the NFAC should have considered the merits of the assessee's submissions regarding the opportunity of hearing, rather than solely relying on the issuance of notices.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent verification. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee, being a real estate developer with substantial land assets, could not be termed a shell company solely due to initial low turnover.

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were the primary basis for the additions. Since this opportunity was denied, the inferences and conclusions drawn by the tax authorities could not be sustained.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had substantially restricted the original addition, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding cash sales and cash in hand. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the comparables selected by the TPO and DRP for the trading segment were not appropriate due to functional dissimilarity. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded to the AO for verification of facts.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh assessment, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case. This was done in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was responsible for non-compliance, the CIT(A) also failed to conduct proper inquiries. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, giving the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to undated reasons for reopening and a mechanically granted approval under Section 151. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that WhatsApp chats alone are insufficient for additions without corroborative material, especially when audited books show higher expenses. It also found that the stock verification was flawed, with raw material in silos ignored, leading to no stock shortage.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were substantiated by the assessee's cash sales and withdrawals, supported by their books of account and VAT returns. The Assessing Officer had not rejected the books of account, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were the primary basis for the additions. Since this opportunity was denied, the inferences and conclusions drawn by the tax authorities could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that WhatsApp chats alone are insufficient for additions without corroborative material, especially when audited books show higher expenses. It also found that the stock verification was flawed, with raw material in silos ignored, leading to no stock shortage.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment order. The amendment to Section 292BC was found not applicable retrospectively to approvals granted prior to its effective date.

The Tribunal held that assessments based on documents seized from a third party must follow the reassessment procedure under Section 147 and related provisions, including obtaining necessary approvals. Proceeding under Section 143(3) in such cases is bad in law.

The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be too harsh, considering the assessee's restricted resources and communication while in custody and immediately after release. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without an effective hearing and violated the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities did not properly analyze the assessee's evidence, such as stock-in-trade and VAT returns. Since the assessee offered 15% of cash sales as unexplained, and the tax authorities did not dispute the books of account or stock, they should have accepted this offer rather than making an ad-hoc disallowance of 30%.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an effective opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit necessary evidence within 60 days.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to non-compliance with the legal requirements of Section 147/148/151 of the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the sanction for reopening was found to be mechanical and without proper application of mind by the approving authority.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has the option to choose the valuation method for unlisted equity shares and the AO must accept the DCF method if chosen by the assessee. For the land valuation, the matter was restored to the AO to refer to the DVO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and audited financials of the lenders, and also explained the source of repayment. The AO's addition was based on past search materials and general modus operandi without specific evidence against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because no incriminating material was found during the search operation that related to the assessee. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not accepted additional evidence and sustained additions without proper investigation or opportunity. For complete justice, the issues were remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent verification. The Tribunal agreed that the assessee, being a real estate developer with substantial land assets, could not be termed a shell company solely due to initial low turnover.

The Tribunal found that the comparables selected by the TPO and DRP for the trading segment were not appropriate due to functional dissimilarity. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was remanded to the AO for verification of facts.

The Tribunal held that the TPO was not justified in applying different filters for comparable companies for international and specified domestic transactions. The assessee's profit margin fell within the acceptable range, making the adjustment and consequential reduction in Section 80-IC deduction unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer failed to record the requisite satisfaction as mandated by Section 153C of the Act. This failure rendered the assessment invalid.

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 fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries regarding cash deposits and the ownership of one bank account. Issues related to sundry creditors and investment in property also required fresh adjudication. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer lacked inherent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C as the assessee's returned income exceeded the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries regarding cash deposits and the ownership of one bank account. Issues related to sundry creditors and investment in property also required fresh adjudication. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for its purchases, and the lower authorities had discredited these without independent inquiry or material to prove purchases were available at lower prices. Therefore, the additions were deemed unreasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has the option to choose the valuation method for unlisted equity shares and the AO must accept the DCF method if chosen by the assessee. For the land valuation, the matter was restored to the AO to refer to the DVO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that the identity of 'Suraj Ji' remained unestablished and the alleged corroborating evidence (a cheque payment) was disproved, as the cheque was issued to Surender Singh, not 'Suraj'. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's case was based on presumptions without sufficient corroboration.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Officer lacked inherent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 153C as the assessee's returned income exceeded the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, thus vitiating the assessment order. The amendment to Section 292BC was found not applicable retrospectively to approvals granted prior to its effective date.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to substantiate the FMV of shares to the satisfaction of the AO, even if it involves modifying the Net Asset Value (NAV) based on rational grounds and competent evidence, such as valuation reports. The previous ITAT decision for A.Y. 2016-17 was found to be squarely applicable.

The Tribunal held that WhatsApp chats alone are insufficient for additions without corroborative material, especially when audited books show higher expenses. It also found that the stock verification was flawed, with raw material in silos ignored, leading to no stock shortage.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were outside the block period and that assessments for AY 2019-20 were wrongly initiated under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C. Furthermore, for other assessment years, the Tribunal found no live nexus between the additions made and the materials seized during the search.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were outside the block period and that assessments for AY 2019-20 were wrongly initiated under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C. Furthermore, for other assessment years, the Tribunal found no live nexus between the additions made and the materials seized during the search.

The tribunal held that since the CIT(E) proceeded ex-parte, there might have been communication gaps, especially with the new faceless hearing system. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that the identity of 'Suraj Ji' remained unestablished and the alleged corroborating evidence (a cheque payment) was disproved, as the cheque was issued to Surender Singh, not 'Suraj'. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's case was based on presumptions without sufficient corroboration.

The Tribunal held that the cash of Rs. 4,05,000, which belonged to the assessee's deceased wife and was declared in her prior income tax return, should not be added to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim to be correct and not contradicted by any contrary material.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals due to low tax effect, as they did not fall under any exception clause of the relevant CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's cross objections were rendered infructuous and also dismissed.