ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that when an assessee fails to appear and the assessment is completed under Section 144, it is more judicious to restore the issue to the AO for fresh assessment. This allows the AO to provide a fresh opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to follow the DRP's directions while passing the final assessment order rendered it bad in law. The subsequent corrigendum issued beyond the limitation period was also deemed invalid.

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 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 scope of inquiry for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) is limited to the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its activities, not the application of funds. The rejection based on loans to members was beyond the prescribed scope of inquiry.

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 set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted an opportunity of being heard and to present evidence.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, found that the assessee deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(E) for a fresh order after considering all documents and providing an adequate hearing.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective and therefore not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that transactions between husband and wife, especially for family benefit, should be viewed liberally and may not attract penalty under Section 271E if there is a reasonable cause. Following previous judgments, the penalty was deemed not justified.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on 28.07.2022 was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

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 held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable as the escapement of income, if any, was less than fifty lakh rupees. Therefore, the entire proceedings were vitiated and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits and had dismissed the appeal due to procedural issues. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in denying registration. It reasoned that activities for a specific industry can still fall under general public utility and that generation of surplus does not automatically disqualify an institution for registration.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not maintainable when additions are made purely on an estimate basis. Such additions are considered to be based on assumptions and presumptions, not on concrete findings of concealment or furnishing of incorrect particulars.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271D without any satisfaction recorded by the AO during assessment proceedings are invalid. Furthermore, the penalty was also found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271D without satisfaction recorded by the AO during assessment proceedings are invalid and without jurisdiction. Additionally, the Tribunal found the penalty levy to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to ascertain the due date for remittance of PF/ESI contributions. The AO is directed to decide the matter in light of previous Tribunal decisions and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the tax authorities were incorrect in disallowing the HUF status solely based on the Dayabhaga law. Citing High Court precedents that recognized HUFs in such communities, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' findings.

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 held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not maintainable when additions are made purely on an estimate basis. Such additions are considered to be based on assumptions and presumptions, not on concrete findings of concealment or furnishing of incorrect particulars.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had already decided the assessee's appeals for the relevant assessment years, including the current one. Therefore, the present appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal had been remanded back to the AO, there was no assessment against which the penalty appeal could survive. Therefore, the penalty appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the Form 10DA was available to the CPC at the time of processing the return under Section 143(1), the disallowance of the deduction was not justified. Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80JJAA is allowable.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by its own previous orders in the assessee's own case for multiple assessment years. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not admissible in light of CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exception was applicable.

The tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not passed a speaking order in the set-aside proceedings and had dismissed the applications without proper consideration. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a speaking order after hearing the assessee.

The tribunal held that the CIT(E) had not passed a speaking order in the set-aside proceedings and had dismissed the applications without proper consideration. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a speaking order after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the AO levied the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Royalty/FTS income of Rs. 8,51,39,358/- offered during assessment, as it was not declared in the return. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, accepting the assessee's explanation that the omission was inadvertent and bona fide, with no intention to evade tax, as the entire tax liability was discharged by TDS, and credit for which was not claimed. The CIT(A) found that this negated any deliberate attempt to seek undue refund and substantiated the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to bring on record any facts in the assessment or penalty proceedings to support its claim that the disclosure was made only after detection by the AO. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the AO's penalty order did not pass a speaking order to establish the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s findings and upheld its reliance on the decisions in Aditya Malla vs. ITO and Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT to conclude that the assessee's conduct did not establish a deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty deletion was upheld.

The Tribunal held that it is mandatory for the AO to specify the exact clause under Section 270A(9) under which the penalty is being levied, and a vague notice renders the penalty proceedings unsustainable.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was granted with the liberty to file the appeal afresh before the appropriate benches, and any delay in filing the fresh appeal was condoned.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions rather than concrete evidence to support the on-money allegation. There was no actual evidence presented against the assessee to justify the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to lack of proper jurisdiction. The notice under Section 148 was also deemed invalid as it was issued beyond three years without the mandatory approval of the higher authorities as required by Section 151.

The Tribunal held that for a person other than the searched person, the date of recording satisfaction is considered the date of search. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the amended provisions rendered Section 153C inapplicable, making the proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that for a person other than the searched person, the date of recording satisfaction is considered the date of search. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the amended provisions rendered Section 153C inapplicable, making the proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that for a person other than the searched person, the date of recording satisfaction is considered the date of search. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the amended provisions rendered Section 153C inapplicable, making the proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that for a person other than the searched person, the date of recording satisfaction is considered the date of search. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the amended provisions rendered Section 153C inapplicable, making the proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that for a person other than the searched person, the date of recording satisfaction is considered the date of search. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the amended provisions rendered Section 153C inapplicable, making the proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that for a person other than the searched person, the date of recording satisfaction is considered the date of search. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the amended provisions rendered Section 153C inapplicable, making the proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that for a person other than the searched person, the date of recording satisfaction is considered the date of search. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, the amended provisions rendered Section 153C inapplicable, making the proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note did not clearly indicate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's taxable income. This failure is fatal to the validity of the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note did not clearly indicate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's taxable income. This failure is fatal to the validity of the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that a fresh claim for deduction under Section 54 of the Act cannot be considered in a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had correctly confirmed the addition.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be contemptuous of the Delhi High Court's directions due to non-adherence to the timeline and inadequate consideration of the assessee's contentions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer did not explicitly state whether the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Relying on a High Court judgment, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer did not explicitly state whether the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Relying on a High Court judgment, the Tribunal quashed the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's submissions. The Pr. CIT's order was found to be based on suspicion rather than a clear error in the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the interest component of land acquisition compensation, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam HUF, is part of enhanced compensation and potentially exempt. The Tribunal distinguished the High Court ruling relied upon by the revenue and found the PCIT's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have been given an opportunity to rebut the factual aspects raised by the CIT(A) before the assessment order was quashed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.