ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given a further opportunity to be heard. The matter was remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee and considering evidence.

The tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted a further opportunity to represent its case effectively and present evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made under Section 153C, which formed the basis for the penalty, were already deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) is also deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a delay in filing the return cannot be a ground for disallowing exemption under Section 10(25) of the Act. It relied on a previous ITAT Mumbai decision with identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted all required documents and that the trust deed contained a valid irrecoverable clause. Therefore, the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was not sustainable.

The tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done due to potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and in the larger interest of justice.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without an effective hearing, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was out of cash sales recorded in the books of account, making the addition under Section 69A unsustainable. Furthermore, the addition under Section 115BBE for AY 2017-18 was also quashed as the provision is applicable from AY 2018-19 onwards.

The Tribunal held that the loan from the father was substantiated by bank statements, and the recovery from debtors was supported by confirmations and identity documents. Therefore, both additions were found to be without basis.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that no effective opportunity of hearing was provided. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the pending quantum appeal and the ambiguity in the penalty notice.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated and framed by the ACIT were contrary to the CBDT circular No. 1 of 2011. Therefore, the impugned reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable in law as it was initiated after 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and did not involve an addition exceeding Rs. 50 lacs, as per Section 149(1)(b).

The Tribunal noted that ex-parte proceedings by the CIT(A) could be due to communication gaps. In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the assessment was framed by an officer not authorized as per the CBDT circular. Therefore, the impugned assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements, confirmations, and ITRs, to explain the sources of funds. These evidences were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence did not clearly explain the cash deposits or the credit from the hospital. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to provide the assessee a further opportunity to present evidence to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of exemption based on the late filing of Form 10B was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete evidence. There was no actual evidence presented to support the allegation of on-money payment by the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the interest income was not an accommodation entry and that the Revenue's action was without merit. The addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to be heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the lower authorities did not consider the assessee's socio-economic status or her accumulated savings. Consequently, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1 lakh was deemed just and proper, with the understanding that this would not set a precedent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the AO's order was ex-parte and confirmed by the CIT(A), the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment to ensure natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was ex-parte and the CIT(A) had confirmed it without considering the assessee's submissions. To ensure natural justice, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted all required documents and that the trust deed contained a valid irrecoverable clause. Therefore, the rejection of the applications by the CIT(E) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to refer the specified domestic transactions to the TPO was a procedural irregularity, not an incurable defect. Following Supreme Court precedent, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment with a reference to the TPO.

The Tribunal held that purchases made from NETG were genuine and commercially expedient, even if made after the agreement's formal expiry, as they discharged subsisting contractual obligations. The disallowance of these purchases by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that purchases made from NETG were genuine and commercially expedient, even if made after the agreement's formal expiry, as they discharged subsisting contractual obligations. The disallowance of these purchases by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that purchases made from NETG were genuine and commercially expedient, even if made after the agreement's formal expiry, as they discharged subsisting contractual obligations. The disallowance of these purchases by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that purchases made from NETG were genuine and commercially expedient, even if made after the agreement's formal expiry, as they discharged subsisting contractual obligations. The disallowance of these purchases by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that purchases made from NETG were genuine and commercially expedient, even if made after the agreement's formal expiry, as they discharged subsisting contractual obligations. The disallowance of these purchases by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date the documents were handed over to the assessee's AO, which was June 24, 2022 (AY 2023-24). Consequently, the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 fell outside the 10-year block period, rendering the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the business involved unorganized activities with potential cash turnover and that sales receipts were not questioned. Considering divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date the documents were handed over to the assessee's AO, which was June 24, 2022 (AY 2023-24). Consequently, the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 fell outside the 10-year block period, rendering the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date the documents were handed over to the assessee's AO, which was June 24, 2022 (AY 2023-24). Consequently, the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 fell outside the 10-year block period, rendering the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal held that purchases made from NETG were genuine and commercially expedient, even if made after the agreement's formal expiry, as they discharged subsisting contractual obligations. The disallowance of these purchases by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the block period for assessment under Section 153C should be calculated from the date the documents were handed over to the assessee's AO, which was June 24, 2022 (AY 2023-24). Consequently, the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 fell outside the 10-year block period, rendering the assessments invalid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with the assessee given liberty to file a revised application if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) for AY 2017-18 was illegal and void ab initio because the search date for the assessee should be considered as AY 2019-20, not the date of the original search. Consequently, the assessment should have been framed under section 153C, not 143(3).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without sufficient opportunity and without following the principle of natural justice. It was noted that there was no proof of proper service of notices on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) for AY 2017-18 was illegal and void ab initio because the search date for the assessee should be considered as AY 2019-20, not the date of the original search. Consequently, the assessment should have been framed under section 153C, not 143(3).

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on July 31, 2022, for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation, quashing the reassessment. Similarly, for AY 2015-16, the notice was also found to be time-barred, leading to the quashing of reassessment and consequential penalty.

The Tribunal held that the investment in BARC was not a violation of Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d), as it was made to fulfill the assessee's objectives and in line with government policy. The consequential claims for application of income were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications summarily without affording due opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications summarily without affording due opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to incorporate the DRP's directions and pass the final assessment order within the prescribed time, even after receiving the TPO's order giving effect, was a violation of statutory provisions. The assessment order was therefore vitiated.