ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked proper application of mind by the approving authority. The use of ambiguous phrases like 'as amended' and the absence of specific details regarding seized documents and additions vitiated the approval process.

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 claim for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) was also allowed for statistical purposes, remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was a conduit company and not a beneficiary of accommodation entries was a finding of fact. Since the beneficiaries and entry operators were already identified and additions made in their hands, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld additions for unsubstantiated expenses, labour charges, and bogus billing due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting documents. However, it directed deletion of additions related to administrative expenses and interest on fixed deposits.

The Tribunal agreed that the tax effect, when computed correctly under normal provisions, fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

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 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 TPO's action of treating AMP expenses as an international transaction and applying the Bright Line Test was incorrect. It also directed the TPO to reconsider the ALP of import transactions by treating the foreign AE as the tested party, subject to the assessee providing evidence.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and a quasi-judicial proceeding. Since the approval was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, it vitiated the assessment order.

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 held that the approval granted under Section 153D was a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and a quasi-judicial proceeding. Since the approval was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, it vitiated the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the financial assistance received from NRDA for project development is capital in nature, not revenue. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action of treating AMP expenses as an international transaction and applying the Bright Line Test was incorrect. It also directed the TPO to reconsider the ALP of import transactions by treating the foreign AE as the tested party, subject to the assessee providing evidence.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action of treating AMP expenses as an international transaction and applying the Bright Line Test was incorrect. It also directed the TPO to reconsider the ALP of import transactions by treating the foreign AE as the tested party, subject to the assessee providing evidence.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from engineering and ground handling services are taxable in India and not eligible for the benefit under Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA, following previous decisions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for cash deposits, finding them to be regular business receipts adequately explained by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action of treating AMP expenses as an international transaction and applying the Bright Line Test was incorrect. It also directed the TPO to reconsider the ALP of import transactions by treating the foreign AE as the tested party, subject to the assessee providing evidence.

The Tribunal held that the decision of the Learned CIT(A) was not based on a correct understanding of the facts. The Tribunal noted that the notices under section 142(1) were indeed issued on an incorrect and non-existent email ID (fimcuae@eim.ae) as against the correct address of the assessee (Anilmboss@yahoo.com). Consequently, the Tribunal found no case of non-compliance by the assessee with the statutory notices of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the penalty of Rs. 40,000 levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the third issue regarding the separate levy for each notice, as the penalty was deleted on the grounds of improper service of notices.

The Tribunal held that the stipend received by the assessee for pursuing her Post Graduate Medical education is intended to meet the cost of education and is therefore exempt under Section 10(16) of the Act. The stipend cannot be equated to salary.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from engineering and ground handling services are taxable in India and not eligible for the benefit under Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA, following previous decisions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for cash deposits, finding them to be regular business receipts adequately explained by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the AO's comparison of net profit rates was factually incorrect as the assessee had declared a net profit of 46.99% for the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases. This decision was made to balance justice, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as prayed. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the VSVS application fails to mature.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's action of treating AMP expenses as an international transaction and applying the Bright Line Test was incorrect. It also directed the TPO to reconsider the ALP of import transactions by treating the foreign AE as the tested party, subject to the assessee providing evidence.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from engineering and ground handling services are taxable in India and not eligible for the benefit under Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA, following previous decisions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition for cash deposits, finding them to be regular business receipts adequately explained by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable, citing a co-ordinate bench decision that quashed a similar penalty imposed after a significant delay without proper application of mind. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption of leave encashment as claimed, following the revised limit prescribed by CBDT Notification No. 31/2023. The assessee's employer, being affiliated with a government-controlled university, falls within the scope of eligible entities.

The Tribunal upheld additions for unsubstantiated expenses, labour charges, and bogus billing due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting documents. However, it directed deletion of additions related to administrative expenses and interest on fixed deposits.

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 held that the reopening was invalid because the prescribed authority's approval was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind, citing a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal agreed that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, with a warning against future non-compliance.

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.

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 held that the impugned orders of the AO and CIT(A) were not just fair and reasonable. The assessee had provided evidence, including affidavits and sale deeds, demonstrating that the cash deposits were business-related pass-through transactions as a property dealer/intermediary.

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 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 approval granted under Section 153D was a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and a quasi-judicial proceeding. Since the approval was granted mechanically without proper application of mind, it vitiated the assessment order.

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 held that the addition made by the AO under Section 41(1) was illegal. The liabilities were opening balances brought forward and continuously reflected in the books of account, with no evidence of remission or cessation. Following judicial precedents, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) due to a sketchy rejection of the delay condonation request and lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The CIT(E) was directed to re-adjudicate the application, considering the cause for delay and hardship.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the satisfaction note was recorded after April 1, 2021, making the deemed search year fall after the stipulated date. Additionally, a consolidated satisfaction note without specific adverse material was deemed not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) due to a sketchy rejection of the delay condonation request and lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The CIT(E) was directed to re-adjudicate the application, considering the cause for delay and hardship.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the remaining sum of Rs. 3,64,712/-. However, considering the facts, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application was due to a bona fide mistake and that the timelines prescribed under Section 80G(5) should be treated as directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the date of recording the satisfaction note or receipt of records by the AO of the non-searched person is the relevant date for determining the 'deemed date of search'. In this case, the deemed date of search was 19.09.2022, rendering the assessment under Section 153C invalid.

The Tribunal held that the date of recording the satisfaction note or receipt of records by the AO of the non-searched person is the relevant date for determining the 'deemed date of search'. In this case, the deemed date of search was 19.09.2022, rendering the assessment under Section 153C invalid.

The Tribunal held that the date of recording the satisfaction note or receipt of records by the AO of the non-searched person is the relevant date for determining the 'deemed date of search'. In this case, the deemed date of search was 19.09.2022, rendering the assessment under Section 153C invalid.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained investment in gold coins and Ginnis, finding they belonged to the assessee's sister and brother. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal concerning unexplained investment in jewellery, directing credit for jewellery owned by the assessee's sister.

The Tribunal held that the date of recording the satisfaction note or receipt of records is the relevant date for determining the 'deemed search date' in the case of a non-searched person. As the satisfaction note was dated 19.09.2022, Section 153C was not applicable.