ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19, upholding the denial of agricultural income exemption. For AY 2020-21, the issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have waited for the completion of the construction and verification of the charitable work before rejecting the registration. The cancellation of registration before the building was complete and allocated was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, acknowledging potential communication gaps when an assessee is proceeded ex-parte.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee avoided proceedings, relevant details were filed as additional evidence before the CIT(A) which were not verified by the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C(2) is a specific provision for property valuation in capital gains cases, overriding the general provision of Section 142A. The assessment was completed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153, as the extended time limit under Section 142A was wrongly applied.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2018-19, upholding the denial of agricultural income exemption. For AY 2020-21, the issue of unsecured loans was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on its merits and had proceeded on an erroneous appreciation of facts. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A). However, due to the assessee's casual and negligent conduct, a cost of Rs. 10,000 per appeal was imposed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A). However, due to the assessee's casual and negligent conduct, a cost of Rs. 10,000 per appeal was imposed.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A). However, due to the assessee's casual and negligent conduct, a cost of Rs. 10,000 per appeal was imposed.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A). However, due to the assessee's casual and negligent conduct, a cost of Rs. 10,000 per appeal was imposed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached the principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits as per Sections 250 and 251 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the issue back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to admit additional evidence and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the cheques totaling Rs. 3 crores were directly paid to the mining department of Haryana through banking channels, the question of identity and creditworthiness of the assessee for these unsecured loans did not arise. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the new virtual hearing mechanism. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the quantum appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with three opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. To ensure justice, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was bad in law as the additions were made on an estimated basis without specific findings of misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The Assessing Officer also failed to specify the clause of under-reporting or misreporting invoked.

The Tribunal found that the issue of ESI/PF disallowance had been adjudicated in favour of the department by the Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Therefore, the assessee's arguments against the disallowance were rejected.

The Tribunal held that a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases would be just and proper, which would also cover the commission disallowances. The disallowance under section 80C was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that Section 71(2A) of the Income Tax Act, as interpreted by the CIT(A), only restricts set off of business loss against salary income, not income from other sources. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that since depreciation was allowed in prior and subsequent years and the block of assets was identified, there was no justifiable reason to deny depreciation for the current year.

The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam HUF, is part of the enhanced compensation and not income from other sources. The revisional order based solely on an audit objection and misinterpreting case law was not sustainable.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings as they were initiated beyond the prescribed time limit of 6 years from the assessment year and did not involve an addition exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, as per Section 149(1)(b).

The Tribunal held that the assessment year under consideration (2012-13) was beyond the six-year period from the date of satisfaction recording for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than discussing specific incriminating material against the assessee. There was no actual evidence presented to support the on-money allegations.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than discussing specific incriminating material against the assessee. There was no actual evidence presented to support the on-money allegations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than discussing specific incriminating material against the assessee. There was no actual evidence presented to support the on-money allegations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done due to the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because it was initiated solely for the purpose of verification. The court quashed the impugned reopening based on the assessee's contention and supporting case law.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea as the lower authorities did not dispute the employer's certificate confirming the salary after deductions. The Assessing Officer is directed to finalize the computation after verification.

The Tribunal found that American Express had subsequently corrected its reporting, and the assessee provided a confirmation of the corrected amount. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the revised Form 26AS.

The tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable in law because the Assessing Officer did not make any addition related to the cash deposit, which was the sole reason for initiating the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the matters to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done due to the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not sustainable in law as it was initiated after 6 years and did not involve an addition exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, as per Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete incriminating material. There was no actual evidence presented against the assessee to support the on-money allegation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the need for a liberal approach in such matters. The assessment order was passed ex-parte, and the assessee was not properly represented.

The Tribunal found no merit in the addition related to Jash Infratech Pvt. Ltd. as no transaction was evident from the assessee's bank statement and this was not rebutted by the Revenue. The addition was made contrary to the reopening reasons.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the quantum and penalty issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.