ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly applied Section 12AB(4) which is for cancellation, not for initial registration. The CIT(E) also failed to provide a finding that income was applied for the benefit of a particular caste.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly applied Section 12AB(4) which is for cancellation, not for initial registration. The CIT(E) also failed to provide a finding that income was applied for the benefit of a particular caste.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT(E). However, considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses was not eligible for deduction in AY 2012-13. However, since the assessee had reversed and offered the same amount to tax in AY 2015-16, it should be eligible for reduction from total income in AY 2015-16 to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the provision for expenses was not eligible for deduction in AY 2012-13. However, since the assessee had reversed and offered the same amount to tax in AY 2015-16, it should be eligible for reduction from total income in AY 2015-16 to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the credit card payments were made from cash commission income, which had already been offered to tax. Therefore, the addition was deemed to be a double addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on vague grounds without proper substantiation. Therefore, the assessment order was rightly quashed.

The Tribunal held that the consideration received for software offerings was not taxable as FTS in India, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on third-party information without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination. The Excel sheet, not authored by the assessee and lacking supporting documents, cannot be the sole basis for addition.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on third-party information without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination. The Excel sheet, not authored by the assessee and lacking supporting documents, cannot be the sole basis for addition.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on third-party information without independent corroboration or opportunity for cross-examination. The Excel sheet, not authored by the assessee and lacking supporting documents, cannot be the sole basis for addition.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer was based in Chandigarh and under the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appeals should be adjudicated by the Chandigarh ITAT, not the Delhi ITAT.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer was based in Chandigarh and under the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appeals should be adjudicated by the Chandigarh ITAT, not the Delhi ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing confirmations, PAN, ITs, loan agreements, bank statements, and evidence of repayment through banking channels. The AO failed to bring any credible evidence to establish that the loans were accommodation entries, relying only on suspicion and general observations.

The Tribunal held that the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the genuineness of purchases was discredited without sound reasoning, relying solely on the oral statement of Shri Sanjay Jain. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in not allowing cross-examination of Shri Sanjay Jain and incorrectly stated that the assessee declined the opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the genuineness of purchases was discredited without sound reasoning, relying solely on the oral statement of Shri Sanjay Jain. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in not allowing cross-examination of Shri Sanjay Jain and incorrectly stated that the assessee declined the opportunity.

The Tribunal held that a debatable issue requiring detailed inquiries, such as TDS deduction, cannot be rectified under Section 154 proceedings. The original assessment was completed on 25.12.2019, and the rectification order did not provide any justification for invoking Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the issue price and the FMV was within the 10% safe harbor limit introduced by CBDT Notification No. 81/2023, making the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) unsustainable. The Tribunal also found that the legal and professional charges were revenue in nature and not capital expenditure, thus deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that since the search was initiated after April 1, 2021, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction under Section 153C. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that Section 56(2)(x) is not applicable to loan transactions where the AO has not established that repayment will not occur. Non-compliance with the Companies Act does not automatically render a loan transaction invalid for income tax purposes under this section.

The Tribunal held that an assessment cannot be made against a company whose name has been struck off from the register of companies, as it ceases to exist as a legal entity. This is a substantive illegality.

The Tribunal noted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny based on information already available with the department. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to furnish details regarding client cash deposits and tax payments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s rejection of the cash book and summary was based on computational errors and misinterpretations. The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by withdrawals and gifts, and that the geographical and accounting discrepancies were resolved.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly admitted additional evidence which proved the creditworthiness of the subscribers. The AO's addition based solely on low income in ITRs was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalized for incorrect information filed by a third party (deductor). The AO should have conducted further inquiry to verify the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have decided the appeal on merits as per Section 250 of the Act, rather than dismissing it ex-parte for non-prosecution. The case was restored to the NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148A(b) was bad in law due to the insufficient compliance period. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148A(b) was bad in law due to the insufficient compliance period. Consequently, the assessment order and the penalty levied were also quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. This was done to ensure principles of natural justice were followed and to allow for proper opportunity of being heard to both parties.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 56(2)(x) as the stamp duty value was less than the declared value. It also upheld the deletion of the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) as the payee had no Permanent Establishment in India and did not render services in India.

The Tribunal held that once books of accounts, sales, and closing stock are accepted, any disallowance for bogus purchases should be limited to the gross profit ratio. The AO was directed to re-compute the income based on the average GP of the last five years.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Section 23(5) of the Income Tax Act exempts properties held as stock-in-trade from notional rent. It also agreed that notional rent could only be computed for the period after conversion to an investment property and that a standard deduction under Section 24(a) was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for delayed deposit of PF/ESI was not legally sustainable, as the issue was debatable at the time of assessment and subsequent judicial pronouncements favored the assessee. The disallowance was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition based on the Form 26AS mismatch was unjustified as the income was already offered in the previous year. Expenses related to property sale were allowed as deduction against capital gains. Professional fees for raising working capital were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of a real estate project were not sustainable as the assessee was neither the owner nor the developer. The Tribunal also deleted additions on account of cash deposits, finding the explanation of agricultural income to be supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was flawed as the amounts received were against sales which had already been offered to tax. Therefore, there was no escapement of income, and the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 80G of the Act in respect of amounts initially categorised as CSR expenditure. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 80G falls under Chapter VI-A, which comes into play after the gross total income is computed, including the disallowance under Explanation 2 to section 37(1) for CSR expenditure. Therefore, there is no correlation between the suo-moto disallowance under section 37(1) and the eligibility for deduction under section 80G. The Tribunal followed the decision of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21 and various other precedents. Consequently, the grounds challenging the disallowance of deduction under section 80G were sustained. Regarding the transfer pricing adjustment on outstanding receivables, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the TPO/AO. It was held that the assessee is entitled to working capital adjustments, following the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2020-21, which in turn relied on the principles laid down in Kusum Healthcare Private Limited and Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. The specific amount of adjustment would need to be re-determined after considering these adjustments. The levy of interest under section 234B is consequential. Interest under section 234C is to be charged only on the returned income. The challenge to the initiation of proceedings under section 270A was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A and subsequent notice under Section 148 were issued without the approval of the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, given that the reassessment was initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to reconsider the issue afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present necessary information and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The assessee had substantiated the purchases with documentary evidence, and the AO had not provided counter-evidence or allowed cross-examination. The Tribunal also noted that Section 69C is not applicable when purchases are accounted for and payments are made through banking channels from disclosed sources.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to reconsider the issue afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present necessary information and evidence.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the reassessment notice was time-barred. Consequently, the assessment framed based on that notice was considered bad in law.