ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271DA is independent of the assessment order. However, it found that the Assessing Officer had not properly bifurcated the cash receipts to demonstrate violations of Section 269ST, thus restoring the matter for fresh consideration.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without providing a fair opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeals back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271DA is independent of the assessment order. However, it found that the Assessing Officer had not properly bifurcated the cash receipts to demonstrate violations of Section 269ST, thus restoring the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the CIT(E). Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While noting the assessee's reluctant attitude, the Tribunal decided to provide a last opportunity for adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's reluctant attitude but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to afford a last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was complete only after the digital signature was applied. Since the digital signature was applied after the limitation date, the order was barred by limitation and therefore quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the lower authority and therefore set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the CIT(E). Therefore, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard and file necessary details before the appellate authority. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which included ledger accounts of parties with irrecoverable balances. These evidences were restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing notices under Section 148A and 148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the specified authority (Pr. Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General), as required for reopening after three years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order and that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A).

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

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and failed to provide a hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision after affording a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide the issues on merit and directed the CIT(A) to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that jurisdictional issues, such as the assumption of jurisdiction or limitation, cannot be restored to the AO under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a). These legal grounds must be decided by the appellate authority itself.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.

The tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the CIT(E). Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It found that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the lower authority and therefore set aside the impugned orders.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard, considering the possibility of online notices being missed. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A), condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) to ensure natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal restored the penalty proceedings to the file of the NFAC for denovo adjudication. The NFAC was directed to provide a clear finding on concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars before levying any penalty.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not present its case before the CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that salary received for services rendered in Australia is not taxable in India as per Article 15 of the India-Australia DTAA. Therefore, the salary income should be excluded from the assessee's total income in India.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not present its case before the CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) denied the additional evidence and did not adjudicate the issue on merits. To provide the assessee an opportunity to present documentary evidence, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's plea that Section 50C might not be applicable to leasehold rights and that the AO should have called for a DVO report. The issue was complex and required examination of facts and evidence.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued in accordance with law. Specifically, the approval for issuing the notice was granted by an authority not competent to do so under Section 151(ii) for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on a misunderstanding, as the assessment had already been completed under Section 143(3), not just processed under Section 143(1). This vitiated the reopening proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions. This was based on the fact that the corresponding substantive assessment itself had been quashed for want of incriminating material found during the search.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a fair opportunity of being heard and filing necessary details. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed ex parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the grounds of appeal substantively or provided a detailed finding on the sufficiency of the cause for delay. The ITAT condoned the delay and directed the CIT(A) to hear the appeal on merits.