ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal noted the assessee's reluctance but, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant a last opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 175 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should not be denied on technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as the AO did not have fresh tangible material and relied on information already available. The Tribunal quashed the notice for reassessment and the consequent order.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps due to the new virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate to restore the appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to COVID-19 and natural calamities. It held that Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18 and directed the AO to charge tax at normal rates. The penalty under Section 271B was deleted as the assessee was a commission agent and his turnover did not exceed the audit threshold.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) due to COVID-19 and natural calamities. It held that Section 115BBE was not applicable for AY 2017-18 and directed the AO to charge tax at normal rates. The penalty under Section 271B was deleted as the assessee was a commission agent and his turnover did not exceed the audit threshold.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objections. It held that the assessment orders giving effect to the revisional orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the additions on merits and had also filed applications for admission of fresh evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while there was some failure to explain the cash deposits, the Revenue's disbelieving the assessee's contention was not fully justified. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deemed appropriate. Additionally, the Tribunal directed that the addition be taxed under normal provisions and not Section 115BBE, following a Madras High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the scope of Section 154 is restricted and does not permit enhancements requiring extensive reasoning. Therefore, the addition made under Section 40A(3) through Section 154 proceedings was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO failed to demonstrate that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a requirement for reopening after four years when the original assessment was under Section 143(3).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed mentioned incorrect facts in its order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the PCIT's revisionary issues were distinct from the reassessment proceedings, the limitation period for Section 263 would relate back to the original assessment order. The revisionary order was found to be time-barred.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was overly influenced by the non-filing of the return and failed to consider the assessee's submissions regarding reasonable cause for non-filing. The CIT(A) also passed the order without substantive submissions from the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross objections. It held that the assessment orders giving effect to the revisional orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the absence of an irrevocability clause is not a ground for rejection as per High Court rulings. Since a supplementary deed was filed and the CIT(E) did not consider all documents, the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of calculating the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the land as on 01.04.2001 was arbitrary and not legally sound. The Tribunal also noted that the co-owner's identical valuation was accepted.

The Tribunal found that while the issue was factual, the assessee had a reasonable case. Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 4,00,000/-, and relief was granted on the remaining amount. The tax on the sustained addition was directed to be at normal rates, not 60% as per Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the export turnover and the accounting method followed. The addition on account of alleged difference in export turnover was not justified and was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found the AO justified in estimating net profit but considered 4% to be on the higher side. It held that estimating net profit before partner's remuneration at 2.5% of turnover would meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the additions on merits and had also filed applications for admission of fresh evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the assessee's appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, acknowledging the possibility of communication gaps.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO failed to establish a 'live link' between the information received and the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment. The AO did not apply his own mind or gather corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the invalidation of the updated return was inconsequential as the AO had already incorporated its effect. The additions for late deposit of employee PF/ESI and commission short offered were upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence to challenge the additions on merits and had also filed applications for admission of fresh evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 40,00,000 was made on the basis of a 'dumb document' and without corroborative evidence. The assessee's explanation of a security deposit made through banking channels, which was subsequently refunded, was supported by evidence.