ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal, considering the nature of the business and that the genuineness of activities was not doubted, found that sustaining the entire addition was not justified. It held that Section 115BBE was not applicable in this case.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the amount was an opening balance and not a fresh cash credit in the current year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had the liberty to reopen the prior year if permissible.

The Tribunal found that the assessee wished to file additional documents that were summoned by the CIT(E). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was unsustainable as it was based on an audit objection and overlooked Supreme Court decisions affirming that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application as withdrawn, even though it had raised issues beyond the scope of a simple withdrawal. The assessee's withdrawal rendered the subsequent examination of issues by the CIT(E) moot.

The Tribunal held that the issue of entitlement to Section 80GGC deduction for donations to M/s Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) was no longer res integra, having been decided in favour of the department in ITA No. 1683/AHD/2025 (Rajen Jayantilal Merchant vs Assessment Union, dated 13.11.2025). The Tribunal adopted the reasoning from a co-ordinate bench decision (ITA No. 1017/Ahd/2023, dated 30.04.2025) which had confirmed a similar disallowance. This decision relied on the finding that the bank accounts of the political party were used by accommodation entry providers, where donations received by cheque were layered through various accounts, and cash was ultimately returned to the donor. The Tribunal noted that the AO had clearly brought out facts that the bank accounts of the political parties were used by accommodation entry providers for systematic financial maneuvers to legitimize illicit moneys and evade taxes. The assessee did not dispute these facts with relevant materials, nor did they provide any fresh evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were considered devoid of merit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the disallowance of the Section 80GGC deduction.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. The common approval provided by the prescribed authority was found to be insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Since the approval provided was common for multiple years, it was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment made by applying the Bright Line Test, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sony Ericsson. The Tribunal directed that both parties would be bound by the outcome of the pending Supreme Court SLP in the Sony Ericsson case.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. The common approval provided by the prescribed authority was found to be insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was invalid as it was neither digitally nor manually signed. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law due to the consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years and the absence of specific reference to seized material triggering jurisdiction under Section 153C. The approval granted under Section 153D was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 153C are not applicable for searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Since the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's Assessing Officer was after April 1, 2021, the jurisdiction under section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 153C are not applicable for searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Since the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's Assessing Officer was after April 1, 2021, the jurisdiction under section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 153C are not applicable for searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Since the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's Assessing Officer was after April 1, 2021, the jurisdiction under section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law due to the invalidity of the consolidated satisfaction note and the absence of specific seized material referenced in the satisfaction note. The approval granted under Section 153D was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 153C are not applicable for searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Since the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's Assessing Officer was after April 1, 2021, the jurisdiction under section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 153C are not applicable for searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Since the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's Assessing Officer was after April 1, 2021, the jurisdiction under section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was based on non-compliance by the assessee. However, satisfied with the justification for past non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the issue regarding the applicable tax rate of 25% versus 30% for the assessee, whose turnover was claimed to be below Rs. 400 Crores, required verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law due to the consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years and the absence of specific reference to seized material triggering jurisdiction under Section 153C. The approval granted under Section 153D was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are addition-specific and require specific satisfaction from the AO for each addition. Since the AO's satisfaction was recorded only for TP adjustments and not for the PF disallowance, the penalty was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications without due consideration and a proper application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications without due consideration and a proper application of mind. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order, being based on the assessment order, could not survive if the assessment order's foundation (the quantum addition) was removed. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to ensure proper consideration of the facts and legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law due to the consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years and the absence of specific reference to seized material triggering jurisdiction under Section 153C. The approval granted under Section 153D was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law due to the consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years and the absence of specific reference to seized material triggering jurisdiction under Section 153C. The approval granted under Section 153D was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. The Tribunal found the PCIT's order, based on an audit objection and a High Court decision later distinguished by the Supreme Court, to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be entirely ruled out as bogus, the assessee's book entries were rejected to the extent of applying a profit rate on the impugned purchases. This was done in the interest of justice, considering divergent judicial views on similar issues.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be entirely ruled out as bogus, the assessee's book entries were rejected to the extent of applying a profit rate on the impugned purchases. This was done in the interest of justice, considering divergent judicial views on similar issues.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment initiated under the old tax regime on or after April 1, 2021, was not sustainable. The impugned reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal directed the AO to apply the beneficial tax rate of 10% as per Article 12 of the DTAA if the receipts are considered taxable. It also directed the AO to grant interest under Section 244A and verify an addition related to TDS on interest.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(7) applies only to gratuity provisions or payments debited to the P&L account. Since the amount invested in the LIC Group Gratuity Fund was not debited to the P&L account and not claimed as a deduction, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should adjudicate the quantum appeal before the penalty appeal, as the penalty's foundation lies in the quantum assessment order. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications due to non-furnishing of complete documents, preventing verification of the activities. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications due to non-furnishing of complete documents, preventing verification of the activities. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the company's insolvency proceedings. It set aside the assessment and penalty orders, directing the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after verifying the voluminous data now available with the RP.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the company's insolvency proceedings. It set aside the assessment and penalty orders, directing the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after verifying the voluminous data now available with the RP.

The Tribunal held that while the possibility of sourcing from unregistered dealers could not be ruled out, the assessee's book entries for purchases were rejected to a limited extent. A net profit rate was applied to the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) denying deduction for CSR expenses applies only to computing business income. It cannot be extended to deny deduction under Section 80G for donations to eligible charitable trusts, as this would lead to double disallowance. The donation to PM Cares Fund is eligible for deduction under Section 80G.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI as per the Supreme Court ruling. However, it allowed the assessee's claim for a corresponding adjustment to the Section 80IA deduction, directing the AO to recompute it.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI as per the Supreme Court ruling. However, it allowed the assessee's claim for a corresponding adjustment to the Section 80IA deduction, directing the AO to recompute it.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be entirely ruled out as bogus, the assessee's book entries were rejected to the extent of applying a profit rate on the impugned purchases. This was done in the interest of justice, considering divergent judicial views on similar issues.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) rejected the application without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancies. Therefore, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 60 Lacs and is applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to its low tax effect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.