ITAT Delhi Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to provide a hearing and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes and restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for exemption on capital gains, finding no cogent material to sustain the addition. For loan additions, it allowed claims from family members who declared amounts under VSV Scheme and deleted additions from some lenders, but remanded one loan issue for verification.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of previous applications cannot be a ground for rejecting a subsequent application for registration. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without affording the assessee a proper hearing. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that project-related expenses, including lease rent, incurred on an abandoned project are allowable as revenue expenditure. Routine administrative expenses necessary for the continued existence of the company are also allowable.

The Tribunal held that the AO relied on an incomplete excel sheet with suppressed figures and lacked corroborating evidence of property acquisition. The assessee's affidavit, stating no transaction with Omaxe Group, was unrebutted and should not have been disregarded.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including share transfer deeds and ROC filings, to prove the genuineness of the share sale. The issues raised by the AO regarding the MOU and valuation were addressed by the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including share transfer deeds and ROC filings, to prove the genuineness of the share sale. The issues raised by the AO regarding the MOU and valuation were addressed by the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the leases were finance or operating leases was not pressed by the assessee's counsel. Regarding the applicability of the MLI, the Tribunal, following the decisions in Celestial Aviation Trading Ltd., Kosi Aviation Leasing Ltd., and Sky High Appeal XLIII Leasing Company Ltd., held that the MLI modifies DTAAs. However, for these modifications to be given effect in India, a specific notification under Section 90(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory for each country where the MLI alters a bilateral treaty. The Tribunal found that a single omnibus notification issued by the government was insufficient to legislate the amendments to the DTAA. Therefore, the amended provisions of the DTAA could not be given effect without a specific notification as mandated by Section 90(1). This issue was decided in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in their entirety. The Stay Applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that adding the profit again after it was already declared in the return of income amounts to double addition. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue of transfer pricing adjustment to the AO/TPO for fresh determination, following its own orders for previous years. The issue of depreciation on non-compete fees was also restored to the AO to follow Supreme Court and ITAT directions.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of additions on account of interest income on corpus fund and the disallowance under Section 14A by the CIT(A) was correct, following its own previous decisions. However, the disallowance for delayed employee contribution was upheld by the CIT(A) and not challenged by the Revenue in this appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard on merit.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing an opportunity of being heard, which is contrary to established High Court precedents. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, being an individual, should be given an opportunity to contest the merits of the case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by setting aside the assessment order to the AO when the assessment was not under Section 144. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for verification of the additional evidence.

The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in immovable property. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documents, confirmations, and bank statements to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.1.8 crores under Section 69A was not justified as the statement of Deepak Jain was inconsistent and the alleged buyer denied any transactions. Regarding cash sales, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the net profit embedded in sales, not the wholesale proceeds, could be treated as undisclosed income when books of account were not rejected.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application mechanically and without proper consideration of documents. Citing a contrary High Court ruling, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the application without providing an opportunity of being heard, which is contrary to established High Court precedents. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merits.

The Tribunal held that the issues in the present appeals for AY 2023-24 are identical to those adjudicated for AY 2022-23, where the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessees. The DRP had also acknowledged the identical nature of the issues and adopted its previous year's directions, noting the Department's intention to contest the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's prior decision for AY 2022-23 had found the leases to be operating leases, held that MLI Articles 6 and 7 did not automatically amend the India-Ireland DTAA without specific notification under section 90(1) of the Act, confirmed the applicability of Article 8 of the DTAA, and concluded that the leased aircraft did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Therefore, applying the same reasoning mutatis mutandis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment orders. The operative direction was the setting aside of the assessment orders and allowing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the issues in the present appeals for AY 2023-24 are identical to those adjudicated for AY 2022-23, where the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessees. The DRP had also acknowledged the identical nature of the issues and adopted its previous year's directions, noting the Department's intention to contest the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's prior decision for AY 2022-23 had found the leases to be operating leases, held that MLI Articles 6 and 7 did not automatically amend the India-Ireland DTAA without specific notification under section 90(1) of the Act, confirmed the applicability of Article 8 of the DTAA, and concluded that the leased aircraft did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. Therefore, applying the same reasoning mutatis mutandis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment orders. The operative direction was the setting aside of the assessment orders and allowing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently established that the outstanding balances were either brought forward or arose from business purchases and were subsequently discharged through identifiable payment modes. The AO's assumption that cash transactions were not genuine was not justified given the nature of the business.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application mechanically and without proper consideration of documents. Citing a contrary High Court ruling, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard on merit.

The Tribunal held that since the satisfaction note was recorded after 01.04.2021, the amended provisions of Section 153C, which render the section inapplicable to searches initiated on or after that date, would apply. Therefore, the notice and assessment order under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Section 14A and Section 2(22)(e), finding no error in the lower appellate authority's reasoning and reliance on judicial precedents. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer was valid, as the AO had bonafide material for forming a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Ground No. 1 was decided against the assessee. Regarding Ground No. 2, concerning the addition of Rs. 5,50,000 as unexplained cash credits, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed confirmation letters from all three lenders (Ess Kay Electrical, Sandeep Kumar, and Light & Power System Bhanu Prasad). The Tribunal found that Ess Kay Electrical and Sandeep Kumar lent amounts through banking channels and had sufficient funds. The assessee had thus proved the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders, and the nature and source of the credit were satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus, and therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was liable to be deleted. The addition of Rs. 5,50,000 was deleted, and the ground raised by the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal did not decide the grounds related to interest under sections 234A and 234B, principles of natural justice, or the order being bad in law, as the primary ground concerning the addition was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to provide an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the AO's addition unsustainable as it was based on surmises and arbitrary estimations. The rejection of books of accounts was also deemed not legally tenable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E) before a decision on merit is taken. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the leases were finance or operating leases was not pressed by the assessee's counsel. Regarding the applicability of the MLI, the Tribunal, following the decisions in Celestial Aviation Trading Ltd., Kosi Aviation Leasing Ltd., and Sky High Appeal XLIII Leasing Company Ltd., held that the MLI modifies DTAAs. However, for these modifications to be given effect in India, a specific notification under Section 90(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mandatory for each country where the MLI alters a bilateral treaty. The Tribunal found that a single omnibus notification issued by the government was insufficient to legislate the amendments to the DTAA. Therefore, the amended provisions of the DTAA could not be given effect without a specific notification as mandated by Section 90(1). This issue was decided in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in their entirety. The Stay Applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the registration based on the absence of an irrevocability clause, contrary to a Bombay High Court ruling. The tribunal directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and decide the issue on merit.

The Tribunal held that the taxability of offshore supplies and engineering services should follow the consistent view of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years, where such income was not taxed in India. The Tribunal also noted that the Department had not appealed against these prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 3CL is beyond the assessee's control and should not lead to denial of deduction. Approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is sufficient for the claim.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) failed to properly appreciate the documents and submissions, and erred in concluding the Trust Deed lacked an irrevocability clause. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly appreciated the documents and submissions. The Tribunal noted that the trust deed implicitly established the irrevocable nature of the trust. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly appreciated the documents and submissions. The Tribunal noted that the trust deed implicitly established the irrevocable nature of the trust. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to assign a 'Nil' value for the cost of construction of the Vasant Vihar property was perverse and legally unsustainable. The AO had effectively ignored the directions of the DRP to compute the cost of construction based on circle rates notified by the Delhi Government. The Tribunal noted that the property in Vasant Vihar was a bungalow, and assigning 'Nil' value for construction was contrary to its existence and the Memorandum of Settlement. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's practical difficulties in furnishing documentary evidence for cost of improvement due to efflux of time and loss of records. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-verify the valuation of the Vasant Vihar property based on the specified valuation as per the notification dated 18.07.2007, considering the assessee's submissions and any further evidence provided. The issue was set aside for fresh consideration by the AO, who was directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with the DRP's directions and the relevant circular, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed without an effective hearing and without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was found to be bonafide. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed dismissed the appeal ex parte without considering the adjournment request, thus violating the principle of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the TDS deduction under Section 194J by a client, even if erroneous, cannot solely form the basis for an addition in the assessee's hands without proper examination. The matter was remanded back to the AO for re-examination of the nature of services rendered.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the AO to consider additional evidence from the assessee and allow cross-examination of the property dealer.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had mixed up the facts and that the findings were not in consonance with the assessee's grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to represent her case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was defective as it was a common note for multiple assessment years without correlating the seized material to the specific year under appeal. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after considering all materials and any new evidence the assessee might submit. This was done to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.