ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to FTC, following previous ITAT rulings. It was established that the income fell under the relevant DTAA articles allowing for FTC, and the assessee had complied with all procedural requirements.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. A de novo assessment order is to be passed based on the assessee's submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) acted arbitrarily by rejecting the application and cancelling the existing registration without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to substantiate the advances. 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 the assessment framed by the ITO was not sustainable in law due to the lack of a proper/valid Section 143(2) notice. The assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned prior period expenditure disallowance of Rs. 50 lakhs was not sustainable as the expenditure had not crystallized in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also found no reason to revive the reassessment proceedings quashed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities had proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. Considering the possibility of communication gaps due to the faceless system, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that opening a place of worship as part of a community center or for general public service is not inherently a religious activity, and Diwali expenses are considered general celebration costs. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s rejection based on religious activities was not justified.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of past savings and withdrawals by the assessee, a housewife allegedly deriving tuition income. It granted a further lump sum relief of Rs. 2 lakhs, stating it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year was unabated and additions under section 153C must be based on seized material. Since the loans were declared in regular books, they could not be treated as unexplained money based on seized material.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.

The tribunal allowed the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) based on treaty non-discrimination clauses. Issues of double disallowance and short credit of TDS/TCS were remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the purchased land was a capital asset and deleted the addition. The Tribunal reasoned that the revenue failed to clearly indicate the land's nature as per Section 56(vii) Explanation (d) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment in the case of another person consequent to a search requires prior approval, which was absent. Furthermore, Section 148A of the Act was incorrectly invoked in this scenario.

The Tribunal held that the impugned prior period expenditure disallowance of Rs. 50 lakhs was not sustainable as the expenditure had not crystallized in earlier assessment years. The Tribunal also found no reason to revive the reassessment proceedings quashed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the impugned cash deposits formed part of the sale consideration from the agricultural land. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the source of her investments as savings in her bank account. Therefore, the investments could not be treated as unexplained in her hands.

The Tribunal acknowledged that sourcing from unregistered dealers was possible and that sales were not disputed. Considering divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the impugned purchases was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal held that repayment of funds borrowed for capital expenditure, where the funds were not claimed as application in the year of borrowing, amounts to application of income for charitable purposes. The Tribunal relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was bad in law as it did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This lack of clarity indicated a non-application of mind by the AO.

The tribunal allowed the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) based on treaty non-discrimination clauses. Issues of double disallowance and short credit of TDS/TCS were remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.

The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.

The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remanded all issues back to the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to consider the submissions and documentary evidence before passing a fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliance and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. A de novo assessment order is to be passed based on the assessee's submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal held that ESI/PF dues must be credited before the statutory due date, not the return filing due date, as per Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions. This disallowance is permissible under section 143(1) processing.

The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was wrongly levied. The cash received was part of an agreement to sell, and a rectification deed corrected the date of receipt, indicating no intent to violate Section 269SS.

The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions. The Tribunal agreed that the gains were long-term and thus exempt under Section 10(38) as the shares were held for over 12 months and sold through a recognized stock exchange with STT paid.

The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.

The Tribunal found that the partners were assessed twice for the same income, once in the firm's hands and again in their individual capacity. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant telescoping benefit and a lump sum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits, whichever is lower, treating it not as a precedent.

The Tribunal recalled its previous order and decided the legal ground. It held that approval under section 153D must be accorded separately for each assessment year, even for a single assessee. Consequently, the assessments were quashed for violating this provision.

The tribunal held that the appeal was not directly maintainable before the ITAT as per Section 253 of the Act. The assessee was given liberty to file a fresh appeal before the CIT(A) and the delay would be condoned.

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in selecting comparable companies based on the wrong functional comparability (BMT instead of OMT). The Tribunal found a fundamental flaw in the TPO's approach and decided to remit the issue back to the AO/TPO for re-benchmarking.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF. The revisional order based solely on an audit objection was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's grounds of appeal were devoid of merit and untenable, respectfully following judicial precedents. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction. It found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction, and the political party was established to be involved in a bogus donation scam.

The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and not taxable as income from other sources, especially when the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(37). The revisional order of the PCIT was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of TDS credit to the AO for verification and allowed additional grounds related to dividend distribution tax and enhanced deduction under Section 10A. The issue of FTC in respect of income deductible under Section 10A was also allowed with directions to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of exemption for the provident fund withdrawal required verification. It set aside the matter to the AO for proper examination of the evidence and to decide the issue on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It remitted the issue of TDS credit to the AO for verification and allowed additional grounds related to dividend distribution tax and enhanced deduction under Section 10A. The claim for FTC was also allowed with directions to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, violating Section 250(6). The appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's lack of response. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting three effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's lack of response. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting three effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing reasonable cause and the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.