ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and did not provide proper reasons for rejecting the application for additional evidence. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity of hearing and without following the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The CIT(A)/NFAC correctly reversed the addition for unexplained cash withdrawals as it amounted to a double addition, given that deposits in the same account were already taxed. The addition for credit card payments was confirmed due to lack of explanation.

The tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-consideration. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the principle of making additions for unexplained cash deposits, citing Supreme Court judgments. However, considering the assessee's socio-economic status and past savings, a lumpsum relief was granted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) without the assessee having had an effective opportunity to present its case concerning a substantial addition. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee must remain vigilant, cooperate, and make timely representations without seeking unnecessary adjournments. If the assessee defaults further, the CIT(A) can decide the appeal based on available material. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition, leaving all contentions open for both sides.

The Tribunal upheld the principle of making additions for unexplained cash deposits, citing Supreme Court judgments. However, considering the assessee's socio-economic status and past savings, a lumpsum relief was granted.

The tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-consideration. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA are narrower than those in other DTAAs and do not extend to pooling services. Previous decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court have consistently held such income as taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice, as there was no material to show service of notices. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that a difference of opinion regarding the rate of depreciation does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the derivative losses, given the detailed investigation and brokers' admissions of manipulative practices. However, the legal and jurisdictional grounds raised for the first time were admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for a detailed order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the peculiar facts and divergent judicial precedents, a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed just and proper, without setting a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA are narrower than those in other DTAAs and do not extend to pooling services. Previous decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court have consistently held such income as taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were passed without granting an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as there was no material on record to prove service of notices. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation was not fully discharged, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs would be just and proper, providing relief of Rs. 11,68,000/-. The Tribunal also noted that one of the appeals was a duplicate file.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) by an officer vested with jurisdiction is a prerequisite for assessment under section 143(3). It noted that CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011, effective from 1 April 2011, assigns cases with declared income up to Rs 20,00,000 in metro charges to ITOs, and above Rs 20,00,000 to ACs/DCs. Since the Assessee's declared income was Rs 9,85,210, jurisdiction vested with the ITO, not the DCIT. The Tribunal found no evidence of jurisdiction being conferred on the DCIT, Central Circle, by any order under section 127 or section 120 of the Act. Therefore, the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment order passed by the DCIT were without jurisdiction and quashed. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devichand Jain. The legal ground was allowed, rendering the grounds on merits academic.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee's counsel. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee raised issues of natural justice and that the additions were based on surmises. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration, with a direction to obtain a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal found some merit in the assessee's explanation and deemed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh to be just and proper. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be done under normal provisions as the section was effective from 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application after considering the assessee's submissions and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the inclusion of dividend from mutual funds, interest on RBI tax-free bonds, and interest on UTI tax-free bonds in the total income was indeed an inadvertent mistake by the assessee. While the assessee had included these amounts under the head 'income from other sources', the crucial fact was that the details of these exempt incomes were duly filed in Schedule-E at page 20 of the ITR-4. The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) disputed the exempt nature of these incomes. The Tribunal reasoned that the lower authorities should have examined the details of exempt income provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of these exempt incomes from the total income and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude them for the purpose of computation of tax liability. The ratio decidendi is that where exempt income is clearly disclosed in the return, even if mistakenly included in taxable income, a rectification application under Section 154 can be allowed to correct such a mistake apparent from the record, provided the exempt nature is not disputed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the cash credits. Similarly, the HRA disallowance was also deleted as the assessee had furnished all necessary documentation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as there was a reasonable cause. The assessment order was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication, and the penalty order was deleted as it stemmed from the set-aside assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to examine the creditworthiness of the lenders. The CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the primary onus on the assessee regarding identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of lenders under Section 68.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to make requisite compliance. This was done in the interest of justice to allow for proper verification and decision on merits.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Considering the factual contentions and the need for verification, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) as there was a reasonable cause. The assessment order was set aside to the AO for de novo adjudication, and the penalty order was deleted as it stemmed from the set-aside assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence before the lower authorities to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to obtain a remand report from the AO and allow the assessee to file relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation was not fully discharged, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was just and proper, providing relief on the remaining amount. The second appeal was dismissed as a duplicate.

The tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-consideration. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's agricultural income and milk sales, where cash turnover was possible. While the assessee did not fully discharge the onus of proof, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was deemed just and proper, providing relief of Rs. 13,50,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the inclusion of dividend from mutual funds, interest on RBI tax-free bonds, and interest on UTI tax-free bonds in the total income was indeed an inadvertent mistake by the assessee. While the assessee had included these amounts under the head 'income from other sources', the crucial fact was that the details of these exempt incomes were duly filed in Schedule-E at page 20 of the ITR-4. The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) disputed the exempt nature of these incomes. The Tribunal reasoned that the lower authorities should have examined the details of exempt income provided by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of these exempt incomes from the total income and directed the Assessing Officer to exclude them for the purpose of computation of tax liability. The ratio decidendi is that where exempt income is clearly disclosed in the return, even if mistakenly included in taxable income, a rectification application under Section 154 can be allowed to correct such a mistake apparent from the record, provided the exempt nature is not disputed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding Section 14A disallowance and corporate guarantee adjustments. It allowed the assessee's claim for carbon credits and government grants as capital receipts. Leave encashment provisions were disallowed, and interest income was to be re-examined.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) had decided the issues ex-parte and without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, violating Section 250(2)(a) and Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order in paragraph 3 indicated that the matter was decided based on the material available on record without stating the point of determination and the reasons for the decision. The rejection of the additional evidence under Rule 46A was also found to be without proper justification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law and set it aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A. The assessee was directed to present its case before the AO within 60 days. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO or the grounds related to Section 115BBE, Section 271AAC, or the validity of the Section 153A assessment, as these were not reached due to the procedural defect.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) had decided the issues ex-parte and without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, violating Section 250(2)(a) and Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order in paragraph 3 indicated that the matter was decided based on the material available on record without stating the point of determination and the reasons for the decision. The rejection of the additional evidence under Rule 46A was also found to be without proper justification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law and set it aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A. The assessee was directed to present its case before the AO within 60 days. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO or the grounds related to Section 115BBE, Section 271AAC, or the validity of the Section 153A assessment, as these were not reached due to the procedural defect.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding Section 14A disallowance and corporate guarantee adjustments. It allowed the assessee's claim for carbon credits and government grants as capital receipts. Leave encashment provisions were disallowed, and interest income was to be re-examined.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding Section 14A disallowance and corporate guarantee adjustments. It allowed the assessee's claim for carbon credits and government grants as capital receipts. Leave encashment provisions were disallowed, and interest income was to be re-examined.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) had decided the issues ex-parte and without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, violating Section 250(2)(a) and Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order in paragraph 3 indicated that the matter was decided based on the material available on record without stating the point of determination and the reasons for the decision. The rejection of the additional evidence under Rule 46A was also found to be without proper justification. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was bad in law and set it aside. The matter was restored to the file of the AO with a direction to consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A. The assessee was directed to present its case before the AO within 60 days. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions made by the AO or the grounds related to Section 115BBE, Section 271AAC, or the validity of the Section 153A assessment, as these were not reached due to the procedural defect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, stating that the assessee had discharged its burden to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the lender, and genuineness of the transaction. The Revenue failed to provide any material to controvert these findings.

The Tribunal held that a reassessment proceeding is not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable as the corresponding quantum assessments had been quashed by a previous order for lack of valid approval under section 153D. The penalty for assessment year 2015-16 was also deleted on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the assessee did not respond to notices and did not request the reasons for reopening. However, the addition on merits was deleted as the purchase of shares was accepted, reflected in books, and sale consideration was received through banking channels.

The Tribunal decided to keep the appeals pending before the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's final outcome. This is to avoid contradictory findings and allow for fresh factual verification after the apex court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were unsustainable as the corresponding quantum assessments had been quashed by a previous order for lack of valid approval under section 153D. The penalty for assessment year 2015-16 was also deleted on merits.

The Tribunal decided to keep the appeals pending before the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's final outcome. This is to avoid contradictory findings and allow for fresh factual verification after the apex court's decision.

The Tribunal decided to keep the appeals pending before the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's final outcome. This is to avoid contradictory findings and allow for fresh factual verification after the apex court's decision.

The Tribunal decided to keep the appeals pending before the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's final outcome. This is to avoid contradictory findings and allow for fresh factual verification after the apex court's decision.

The Tribunal held that a combined satisfaction note under Section 153C is valid, and the assessment was not time-barred. The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the cash credits.

The Tribunal decided to keep the appeals pending before the CIT(A) to await the Supreme Court's final outcome. This is to avoid contradictory findings and allow for fresh factual verification after the apex court's decision.