ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was invalid because it was obtained from both the JCIT and the PCIT, which is contrary to the statutory requirements for reopening beyond four years. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the date of allotment should be considered for calculating the holding period for capital gains, following a CBDT circular. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the capital gains based on the original date of allotment.

The Tribunal found substantial force in the assessee's grievance regarding the breach of natural justice. The adverse inference drawn by the CIT(E) was based on a field inquiry report that was neither supplied to nor confronted to the assessee, making its use impermissible. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had dismissed the assessee's documentary evidence (trust deed, financial statements, bank statements, photographs, bills, and vouchers) with general and vague reasoning, without a specific examination of any deficiencies. Findings from collateral section 80G proceedings, which were themselves vitiated by a breach of natural justice, could not form the sole basis for denying registration under section 12AB without independent inquiry. Regarding the breadth of objects, the Tribunal observed that the trust deed included assisting schools and students, and a specific object provided for respecting all castes and religions on humanitarian grounds, with no restriction on beneficiaries. No material was presented by the CIT(E) to show that the trust's objects were predominantly religious or confined to a specific community. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s order cancelling registration and directed its restoration. It also held that the conditions for section 80G(5) approval were fulfilled and directed the CIT(E) to grant approval.

The Tribunal held that the statements recorded under section 132(4) during a search have substantial evidentiary value and that section 132(4A) creates a presumption that documents found belong to the person searched and their contents are true. The assessee failed to discharge the onus to rebut these presumptions.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) to prevent miscarriage of justice. The assessee is to be granted a further opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to ensure compliance in the future.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) may not have properly understood the assessee's contentions. Given the claims of miniscule religious expenditure and the need for verification, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was engaged in trading activities with a significant cash turnover. It noted divergent judicial views on bogus purchases and decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of alleged bogus purchases for expenditure and Rs. 2 lacs on unexplained income, without setting a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the 'deemed date of search' fell after April 1, 2021, making Section 153C inapplicable as per the newly inserted sub-section (3). Consequently, the notice and subsequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal held that affiliation or recognition is not a mandatory condition for an educational institution to be considered for registration. The CIT(E) had rejected the application without proper application of mind, overlooking previous registrations on similar grounds.

The Tribunal held that affiliation or recognition is not a mandatory condition for an educational institution to qualify for registration. The CIT(E) had rejected the application without proper application of mind, overlooking previous registrations granted on similar grounds.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in the AUDA case narrowly and without considering the assessee's broader aims of promoting golf. The Tribunal noted that previous assessments had not treated the assessee's receipts as commercial. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in the AUDA case narrowly and without considering the assessee's broader aims of promoting golf. The Tribunal noted that previous assessments had not treated the assessee's receipts as commercial. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the 'deemed date of search' fell after April 1, 2021, making Section 153C inapplicable as per the newly inserted sub-section (3). Consequently, the notice and subsequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal, acknowledging divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the disputed purchases for both assessment years. For scrap sales, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was made, considering potential expenditure incurred by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the 'deemed date of search' fell after April 1, 2021, making Section 153C inapplicable as per the newly inserted sub-section (3). Consequently, the notice and subsequent assessment were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the complete details of the expenses claimed were not on record and had not been examined by the AO or DRP. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal, acknowledging divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the disputed purchases for both assessment years. For scrap sales, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was made, considering potential expenditure incurred by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had voluntarily withdrawn its application for registration, the order of the CIT(E) disposing of the application as withdrawn was not incorrect. Therefore, the assessee's appeal against this order was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issues of transfer pricing adjustments for both the project business segment and intra-group services back to the TPO for fresh reconsideration. The Tribunal noted that similar issues in subsequent assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee or restored to the TPO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan transactions. Regarding the static creditors, the Tribunal held that the liability was not extinguished and thus Section 41(1) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that once a search under section 132 has occurred and seized material is used, a regular assessment under section 143(3) cannot be validly concluded. The assessment proceedings should have followed the special provisions of section 148.

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18, as confirmed by the Madras High Court. Furthermore, the appeal fell within the low tax effect limit as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was a double addition as the cash amount was already included in the disclosed sale consideration. The assessee provided a plausible explanation for the cash, and it was part of the sale proceeds, hence it could not be treated as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural lands sold by the assessee could not be treated as capital assets as per Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the addition of long-term capital gains was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to contest the case on merits. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was to be provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously rejected the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the very short delay of two days and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, condoned the delay, and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for another opportunity to present their case. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee's activities were not denied in principle, the expenses were not fully proven to the satisfaction of the AO. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was made to meet the ends of justice.

The ITAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The assessee was given an opportunity to provide complete details and adequate evidence.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the addition on cash deposits to Rs. 3 lakhs and deleting the disallowance of cash purchases. The Tribunal noted that section 115BBE applies from April 1, 2017, and that cash purchases were made from business sales.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the Section 148 notice was not granted by the competent authority as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajiv Bansal. Therefore, the notice was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that since the search took place after April 1, 2021, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment orders based on these proceedings were unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that since the search took place after April 1, 2021, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment orders based on these proceedings were unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that since the search took place after April 1, 2021, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment orders based on these proceedings were unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that benchmarking the trading and manufacturing segments separately was not justified due to their interlinked nature and the assessee's primary goal of manufacturing. The matter was remitted back to the AO/TPO for benchmarking the international transaction at the entity level.

The Tribunal held that since the search took place after April 1, 2021, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment orders based on these proceedings were unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that since the search took place after April 1, 2021, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment orders based on these proceedings were unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that since the search took place after April 1, 2021, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment orders based on these proceedings were unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that since the search took place after April 1, 2021, the proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act were void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment orders based on these proceedings were unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that merely returning Rs. 33 lakhs to the donor organization does not amount to a violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, as there was no benefit accruing to the donor. The CIT(A)'s findings were upheld.

The Tribunal held that benchmarking the trading and manufacturing segments separately was not justified due to their interlinked nature and the assessee's primary goal of catering to existing customers. The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to benchmark the international transactions at the entity level.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) as it was engaged in marketing agricultural produce. Despite the inadvertent error in claiming the deduction under the wrong section and lack of supporting details, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal held that if the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the assessee's claim regarding market value, the appropriate recourse was to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) failed to appreciate this plea.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Revenue were identical to those decided by a coordinate bench in previous assessment years in favour of the assessee. Since the facts and circumstances were the same, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found substantial force in the assessee's grievance regarding the breach of natural justice. The adverse inference drawn by the CIT(E) was based on a field inquiry report that was neither supplied to nor confronted to the assessee, making its use impermissible. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(E) had dismissed the assessee's documentary evidence (trust deed, financial statements, bank statements, photographs, bills, and vouchers) with general and vague reasoning, without a specific examination of any deficiencies. Findings from collateral section 80G proceedings, which were themselves vitiated by a breach of natural justice, could not form the sole basis for denying registration under section 12AB without independent inquiry. Regarding the breadth of objects, the Tribunal observed that the trust deed included assisting schools and students, and a specific object provided for respecting all castes and religions on humanitarian grounds, with no restriction on beneficiaries. No material was presented by the CIT(E) to show that the trust's objects were predominantly religious or confined to a specific community. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the CIT(E)'s order cancelling registration and directed its restoration. It also held that the conditions for section 80G(5) approval were fulfilled and directed the CIT(E) to grant approval.