ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee company, which no longer has legal identity after being taken over, is not maintainable. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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 found that the assessment order was not framed as per the amended scheme of law, specifically Sections 148 and 148B, which were mandatory for initiating assessment proceedings in the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

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 allowed 50% of the claimed cost of improvement on an estimated basis, considering the property was old. For the Section 54 deduction, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo examination, acknowledging potential delays in project completion beyond the assessee's control.

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 held that the assessee had partly explained the source of cash deposits from his father's withdrawals and his own bank withdrawals, including imprest from his employer. However, a portion of the deposit remained unexplained.

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 noted that there was no indication of the appellant managing or succeeding to the estate of the deceased, nor any proceedings initiated against them under section 159. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on electrical installations at 15% and on UPS at 60%, following High Court precedents. It also allowed the deduction under Section 80IC by directing item-wise examination of expenses. The disallowance of interest on capital work in progress was deleted, and the Revenue's appeal on additional evidence was dismissed.

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 held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principle of natural justice by deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the penalty proceedings back to the Assessing Officer to await the outcome of a rectification application filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee raised legal grounds regarding the penalty, these were kept open for consequential proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio because the initial scrutiny notice under section 143(2) was issued by an Income Tax Officer (ITO) who did not possess the pecuniary jurisdiction. Following established precedents, the Tribunal quashed the assessment.

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 held that the CIT(A) order was not maintainable as it was passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the principle of natural justice by deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the valuation reports from registered valuers without referring the matter to the DVO or providing specific reasons. The cost of acquisition of land should be taken as per the last valuation report. The assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was vague and ambiguous, indicating a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment proceedings arising from this invalid notice were quashed.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on electrical installations at 15% and on UPS at 60%, following High Court precedents. It also allowed the deduction under Section 80IC by directing item-wise examination of expenses. The disallowance of interest on capital work in progress was deleted, and the Revenue's appeal on additional evidence was dismissed.

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 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 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty because the quantum addition, which formed the basis for levying the penalty, had itself been deleted. The Tribunal noted that it had already deleted the quantum additions made in the assessee's case in a separate ITAT order (ITA No.143/Del/2026). Applying the Latin maxim 'sublato fundamento cadit opus' (the foundation being removed, the structure falls), the Tribunal held that once the foundation for levying the penalty was removed by the deletion of the quantum additions, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to sustain the penalty levied on the assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not maintainable as it was passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice.

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 finding that there were no financial or banking transactions with the alleged paper company during the relevant financial year. The Revenue failed to provide any material to rebut this finding.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the Section 143(2) notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were rendered invalid.

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 inadvertent omission of exempt income in Schedule E1, while being disclosed elsewhere in the return, cannot be a reason to deny the legitimate benefit of exemption. The AO was directed to allow the claim based on the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was not maintainable as it was passed without providing an effective opportunity of hearing and without following the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1985 days, citing the Supreme Court's view that accepting reasons for delay should be the rule. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination without commenting on the merits of the addition.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents to prove the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal held that while the sub-contractors did not comply with notices and one was involved in accommodation entries, work was indeed executed. Therefore, the entire expense could not be disallowed, but only the suppressed profit should be added.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present evidence. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents to prove the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the authorities below. It was held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases, especially when the supplier was identified as an accommodation entry provider. The additional evidence filed by the assessee was rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the issue involved in the current appeal had already been decided in another appeal filed by the same assessee. Therefore, the current appeal was considered a duplicate file.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity of hearing and did not follow the principles of natural justice or the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh consideration.

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 filing Form 67 is a directory and not a mandatory requirement. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Income Tax Act and Rules, and a procedural delay in filing Form 67 should not lead to the denial of a substantive right to claim FTC.

The Tribunal held that derivative transactions are not covered under the Explanation to Section 73(4) and thus losses from them are not speculative. It also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was not in accordance with law as it did not specify how the incriminating material had a bearing on the determination of the total income for each assessment year. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's hostel running activity cannot be considered business activity. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year, the Tribunal found that the revenue's grounds of appeal were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's hostel activity cannot be considered business activity. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were not sustained.

The Tribunal held that a presumption of accuracy or truthfulness cannot be raised for a loose sheet found in the premises of a third party, especially when both parties deny the transaction. Corroborative evidence is required, and in its absence, notional income cannot be brought to tax.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice due to potential communication gaps.

The Tribunal held that the approval under Section 153D was indeed mechanical and invalid, as it was a common approval for numerous cases without specific application of mind. Consequently, the assessment orders based on this invalid approval were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was not in accordance with law as it did not specify how the incriminating material had a bearing on the determination of the total income for each assessment year. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering settled legal propositions regarding the date of search for the applicability of Section 153C. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Coordinate Bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering settled legal propositions regarding the date of search for the applicability of Section 153C. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Coordinate Bench decisions.