ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without proper application of mind and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the evidences. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed multiple appeals against the same order, some of which were withdrawn or restored to the CIT(A). The present appeal was deemed not maintainable due to these circumstances.

The Tribunal held that once Form 10IE is filed and the new tax regime is opted for, it continues to apply in subsequent years unless withdrawn. The denial of benefits due to a technicality with the previous year's form filing was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that most of the Revenue's grounds were covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee, often from earlier assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletions in most instances, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuations on realization of normal sale proceeds for exports are operating in nature, making the ALP adjustment academic. It also directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 80G for donations to the Odisha State Disaster Management Authority. The issue of double taxation relief was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for adjudication on merits. It then restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim, considering the rejection was made without a proper hearing.

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 partly allowed the appeal regarding the addition, reducing it to Rs. 10 lakhs on an estimated basis. It also directed that the addition be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. Penalties under Sections 270A, 271AAC, and 272A(1)(d) were deleted.

The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the addition, reducing it to Rs. 10 lakhs on an estimated basis. It also directed that the addition be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. Penalties under Sections 270A, 271AAC, and 272A(1)(d) were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the share premium received on CCPS issued to a holding company is not taxable under Section 56(2)(viib) if the valuation is done correctly. It also held that the expenses related to hotel transformation services, even if classified as 'interest' by the assessee, are revenue in nature and not capital expenditure, and thus not subject to disallowance under Section 40A(2).

The Tribunal found that there was insufficient fact-finding at the lower levels. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment, leaving the legal challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction open.

The Tribunal held that a lump-sum addition of 5% of total sales promotion expenditure would be just and proper, as the assessee could not establish a complete nexus for certain categories of expenses. The addition made under section 69C for intangible assets was not justified as the expenses were recorded in books and supported by documents.

The Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities were non-speaking and passed ex-parte. In the interest of substantive justice, the quantum assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh assessment. The penalty was deleted as the quantum was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order was rendered unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the share premium received on CCPS issued to a holding company is not taxable under Section 56(2)(viib) if the valuation is done correctly. It also held that the expenses related to hotel transformation services, even if classified as 'interest' by the assessee, are revenue in nature and not capital expenditure, and thus not subject to disallowance under Section 40A(2).

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing the reasonable cause of COVID-19 for not filing them earlier. The issue of transfer pricing adjustment for legal and professional services was set aside to the TPO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer accepted the genuineness of the business income declared by the assessee but doubted the cash deposited from the same sales. The Tribunal noted that VAT violations are for VAT authorities to address and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for business income and cash flow.

The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the addition, reducing it to Rs. 10 lakhs on an estimated basis. It also directed that the addition be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. Penalties under Sections 270A, 271AAC, and 272A(1)(d) were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities, and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to bring the legal heirs on record and provide an opportunity to present relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand the scope of a limited scrutiny assessment beyond the issues identified in the notice. Therefore, the assessment order traveling beyond the scope of the notice was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the AO travelled beyond the scope of the limited scrutiny notice issued under Section 143(2). Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot expand the scope of a limited scrutiny assessment beyond the issues identified in the notice. Therefore, the assessment order traveling beyond the scope of the notice was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reliance on a distinguishable case was incorrect. It found the facts identical to a previous case where similar additions were upheld, thus setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not applied their mind sufficiently and had treated the entire receipts as income. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the addition, reducing it to Rs. 10 lakhs on an estimated basis. It also directed that the addition be taxed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE. Penalties under Sections 270A, 271AAC, and 272A(1)(d) were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the orders of the lower authorities were non-speaking and passed ex-parte. In the interest of substantive justice, the quantum assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh assessment. The penalty was deleted as the quantum was remanded.

The Tribunal held that a lump-sum addition of 5% of total sales promotion expenditure would be just and proper, as the assessee could not establish a complete nexus for certain categories of expenses. The addition made under section 69C for intangible assets was not justified as the expenses were recorded in books and supported by documents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271AAB was unsustainable because the show cause notice and the penalty order did not specify the exact clause under which the penalty was being levied. Furthermore, the sustained addition was based on estimation and not on seized material or admission, and therefore did not constitute 'undisclosed income' for the purpose of penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot change the nature of an addition to a different section of the Act without providing the assessee with a specific show cause notice, as it violates principles of natural justice. The ad-hoc disallowance was found to be on the higher side.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty levied under section 270A(1)(d) did not survive. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the same income amount appeared to have been taxed twice. For the appeal with the delay, it was dismissed due to the excessive and unexplained delay. For the other appeal, the addition of Rs. 94,00,000/- was directed to be deleted, subject to verification by the AO that it was indeed a double addition.

The Tribunal noted that the same income amount appeared to have been taxed twice. For the appeal with the delay, it was dismissed due to the excessive and unexplained delay. For the other appeal, the addition of Rs. 94,00,000/- was directed to be deleted, subject to verification by the AO that it was indeed a double addition.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note for invoking Section 153C was defective as it was common, vague, and mechanical, failing to identify specific incriminating material for each assessment year. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to issue a show cause notice to the assessee before confirming any change in the section under which the addition was made. The CIT(A) was also directed to explain why Section 69A was invoked instead of Section 69B.

The CIT(A) granted TDS credit but upheld the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, as all issues were dealt with and reasons provided.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that AY 2014-15 was outside the six assessment years permitted under Section 153C. The condition of escaped income amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs or more was also not met for the relevant period.

The Tribunal held that the AO in Delhi lacked jurisdiction to conduct the assessment as the assessee's registered office was in Mumbai. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction is a legislative function and cannot be conferred by consent or waiver, even if the assessee participated in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after granting a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the AO and CIT(A), finding the cash deposits and related purchases questionable. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the assessee's explanation and the distance between the parties, confirming the addition.

The Tribunal confirmed additions for 'shagun' money retained after marriage and unexplained personal cash, estimating a reasonable amount. However, it directed deletion of additions related to property sale proceeds and company cash, finding justification for these.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of consultancy charges, partly allowed the deletion of expenses for bills not in the company's name, and upheld the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on interest payments to one entity while directing further verification for another. The issue of sundry balances written off was not fully adjudicated in the provided text.

The Tribunal noted that assessment proceedings against a non-existent entity are void. However, it found that the CIT(A) did not conclusively verify if the cash deposits were accounted for by the proprietor.

The Tribunal held that the order transferring jurisdiction was invalid as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the notices issued by the non-jurisdictional officers and the subsequent assessment order were quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.