ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-73(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3376/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was also directed to decide on the issue of jurisdiction.

AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-73(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3377/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was also directed to decide on the issue of jurisdiction.

GOPAL,DELHI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, DELHI

ITA 491/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without affording the assessee an opportunity to file condonation applications and explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 69 LIMITED,AVIATION HOUSE, SHANNON, CO. CLARE, IRELAND vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 1(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD

ITITA 158/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were in the nature of operating leases, not financial leases. This decision was based on the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the preceding Assessment Year 2022-23, which relied on earlier decisions holding similar lease agreements as operating leases. Consequently, the lease rentals received by the assessees were not taxable in India as interest income under Article 11 of the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal further held that the lease rentals were covered by Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA and were not taxable in India. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that the assessee was not eligible for treaty benefits, finding it inconsistent with the AO's assessment order. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's arguments regarding the duration of the lease and the assessee being a paper company had already been addressed in the order for AY 2022-23. The levy of interest under Section 234B was held to be mandatory and consequential, and the challenge to penalty proceedings was deemed premature. The addition made by the AO treating lease rentals as interest income was deleted.

THE MISSIONARY BROTHERS OF CHARITY CONTEMPLATIVE,GURGAON vs CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

ITA 2073/DEL/2026[-]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026Allowed

The Tribunal held that the worship expenses were a minuscule part of the total charitable expenditure and did not negate the charitable nature of the trust's activities. Therefore, approval under Section 80G should be granted.

AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-73(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3378/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was also directed to decide on the issue of jurisdiction.

PRASHANTHI DUGGI,NEW YORK vs ITO, INT. TAX -1, HYDERABAD

ITITA 106/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed ex-parte, which prevented the assessee from presenting all relevant details and documents to the AO. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal was of the view that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity. Accordingly, the case was remanded back to the file of the AO for a denovo assessment. The AO was directed to take into consideration all relevant papers and documents filed by the assessee and to provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee as required by law. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the revenue in finalizing the assessment. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or other grounds raised in the appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

SANGEETA JAIN ,DELHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59(3), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2699/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal found the reopening to be invalid because the approval obtained from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. This decision was based on a Supreme Court precedent.

GOPAL,DELHI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 13 , DELHI

ITA 492/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without affording the assessee an opportunity to file condonation applications and explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 36 LIMITED,AVIATION HOUSE, SHANNON, CO. CLARE, IRELAND vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD

ITITA 157/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were in the nature of operating leases, not financial leases. This decision was based on the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the preceding Assessment Year 2022-23, which relied on earlier decisions holding similar lease agreements as operating leases. Consequently, the lease rentals received by the assessees were not taxable in India as interest income under Article 11 of the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal further held that the lease rentals were covered by Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA and were not taxable in India. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that the assessee was not eligible for treaty benefits, finding it inconsistent with the AO's assessment order. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's arguments regarding the duration of the lease and the assessee being a paper company had already been addressed in the order for AY 2022-23. The levy of interest under Section 234B was held to be mandatory and consequential, and the challenge to penalty proceedings was deemed premature. The addition made by the AO treating lease rentals as interest income was deleted.

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 64 LIMITED,IRELAND vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD,

ITITA 159/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were in the nature of operating leases, not financial leases. This decision was based on the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the preceding Assessment Year 2022-23, which relied on earlier decisions holding similar lease agreements as operating leases. Consequently, the lease rentals received by the assessees were not taxable in India as interest income under Article 11 of the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal further held that the lease rentals were covered by Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA and were not taxable in India. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that the assessee was not eligible for treaty benefits, finding it inconsistent with the AO's assessment order. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's arguments regarding the duration of the lease and the assessee being a paper company had already been addressed in the order for AY 2022-23. The levy of interest under Section 234B was held to be mandatory and consequential, and the challenge to penalty proceedings was deemed premature. The addition made by the AO treating lease rentals as interest income was deleted.

ANITA,HARYANA vs ITO. WARD-1, HISSAR, HARYANA

ITA 5460/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening initiated under the old tax regime on or after April 1, 2021, was not sustainable as the new law had come into effect. Therefore, the impugned reopening was quashed.

DENSO HARYANA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

ITA 5389/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of DTAA benefits on dividend distribution tax to the Assessing Officer to await the Supreme Court's final decision on similar matters. The Tribunal also admitted additional grounds for refund claims and directed the AO to adjudicate them afresh.

AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-73(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3374/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was also directed to decide on the issue of jurisdiction.

INDIRA YADAV,REWARI vs ITO WARD 1, REWARI

ITA 5356/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the cash deposits were not satisfactorily reconciled, they prima facie represented the assessee's income. However, the addition was restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/- in the interest of justice.

GOPAL,DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 13, DELHI

ITA 488/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without affording the assessee an opportunity to file condonation applications and explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

MADHAVI SWARUP ,NEW DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 20 , NEW DELHI

ITA 985/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 75 lakhs imposed under Section 271D. The Tribunal noted that while the lower authorities relied on a statement under Section 131(1A) of the Act where Shri Rajesh Kumar admitted to the impugned on-money payment, there was no specific material seized from the assessee herself or against her to support these allegations. The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 1/2003, which states that admissions made during search/survey do not carry significant weight. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty levied based on a mere admission was not sustainable in law. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of cross-examination, stating that while it is generally a principle of natural justice, the technical rules of the Indian Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to Income-Tax proceedings. However, it found that the primary onus was on the assessee to rebut the presumptions under Section 132(4A) of the Act, which it had not discharged. Despite this, the core reason for allowing the appeal was the lack of independent corroborative evidence against the assessee to substantiate the cash receipts, beyond the admission of a third party.

DEVENDER KUMAR TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), GHAZIABAD

ITA 3379/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied mechanically. Merely because an item of income is claimed as exempt by the assessee and taxed by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty for underreporting.

BECHTE LIMITED,UNITED KINGDOM vs ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1977/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that substantive and protective assessments on the same assessee are not permissible. It also found that the PE assessment was based on outdated facts and that the 'make available' clause for FTS was not sufficiently examined.

AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-73(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3375/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was also directed to decide on the issue of jurisdiction.

GOPAL,DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13 , DELHI

ITA 489/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) breached principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeals without affording the assessee an opportunity to file condonation applications and explain the delay. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

CELESTIAL AVIATION TRADING 62 LIMITED,AVIATION HOUSE, SHANNON, CO. CLARE, IRELAND vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAX, DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD

ITITA 160/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lease agreements were in the nature of operating leases, not financial leases. This decision was based on the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the preceding Assessment Year 2022-23, which relied on earlier decisions holding similar lease agreements as operating leases. Consequently, the lease rentals received by the assessees were not taxable in India as interest income under Article 11 of the India-Ireland DTAA. The Tribunal further held that the lease rentals were covered by Article 8 of the India-Ireland DTAA and were not taxable in India. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that the assessee was not eligible for treaty benefits, finding it inconsistent with the AO's assessment order. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue's arguments regarding the duration of the lease and the assessee being a paper company had already been addressed in the order for AY 2022-23. The levy of interest under Section 234B was held to be mandatory and consequential, and the challenge to penalty proceedings was deemed premature. The addition made by the AO treating lease rentals as interest income was deleted.

DENSO HARYANA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1250/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal restored the issue of DTAA benefits on dividend distribution tax to the Assessing Officer to await the Supreme Court's final decision on similar matters. The Tribunal also admitted additional grounds for refund claims and directed the AO to adjudicate them afresh.

AKRITI FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVARTE LIMITED,DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

ITA 3648/DEL/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on the sole reason for reopening, the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law and were quashed.

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs SAKSHAT JAIN, PITAMPURA

ITA 9109/DEL/2025[2020]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026Partly Allowed

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

RAJVANT KAUR,KARNAL vs ACIT, KARNAL

ITA 1607/DEL/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove her case entirely to the satisfaction of lower authorities, a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be just and proper, considering the land sale transactions. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 1,11,00,000/-.

MAHENDAR KUMAR SONI,DELHI, INDIA vs OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 900/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the assessments framed under Section 153C. It held that the AO's satisfaction was not explicitly recorded to show that the seized assets had a bearing on the assessee's total income, relying on the Saksham Commodities Ltd. case.

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS LLP,UNITED KINGDOM vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 1841/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that professional services rendered by the LLP do not fall under the definition of 'Fees for Technical Services' (FTS) under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the income attributable to non-UK resident partners is not taxable in India as FTS.

MADHU CHAUDHARY,MEERUT vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

ITA 2883/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's explanation for the cash was not satisfactorily proven, but also considered the possibility of accumulated cash. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deemed to meet the ends of justice, without setting a precedent.

RAMJI DASS DARSHAN KUMAR CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs INCOME TAX. WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 4565/DEL/2026[NA]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application for registration under Section 12AB(1)(ac)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) solely on the ground of non-registration of the Trust Deed with the Sub-Registrar prima facie appears to be incorrect. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Sacred Heart Church vs. CIT(E), which addressed similar issues. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) denied registration in that case for not filing the instrument in original or a copy thereof evidencing the creation of the Trust, and also questioned whether the Trust Deed should be registered. The ITAT Cochin in that case remitted the matter to the CIT(E) to examine the original Trust Deed and also held that an application for registration cannot be refused merely because the Trust Deed was not registered with the Registrar of Societies or Registrar of Documents, relying on CIT vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (Allahabad High Court) and Malli Ram Charitable Trust (ITAT Amritsar). Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for considering the legal requirement of registration of the trust deed in relation to immovable property under Section 13 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and the requirement of registration with the Charity Commissioner. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to rectify any shortcomings and then decide afresh after affording a fair hearing. The issue of registration of the Trust Deed with the Sub-Registrar was answered in favour of the assessee.

MAHENDAR KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI

ITA 901/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the assessments framed under Section 153C, holding that the AO's satisfaction was not recorded with sufficient clarity regarding the bearing of seized materials on the assessee's income, relying on the Saksham Commodities Ltd. case.

AKRITI FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FARIDABAD

ITA 3647/DEL/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not based on the sole identical reason for reopening, the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable in law.

MAHENDAR KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 897/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the assessments framed under Section 153C, holding that the AO's satisfaction was not recorded with sufficient clarity regarding the bearing of seized materials on the assessee's income, relying on the Saksham Commodities Ltd. case.

MAHENDAR KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 898/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the assessments framed under Section 153C, holding that the AO's satisfaction was not recorded with sufficient clarity regarding the bearing of seized materials on the assessee's income, relying on the Saksham Commodities Ltd. case.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 01 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs SAKSHAT JAIN, NEW DELHI

ITA 8683/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 01 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs SAKSHAT JAIN, DELHI

ITA 8553/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

SRI KRISHNA MANDIR TRUST,DELHI vs CIT EXEMPTIONS DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2598/DEL/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2026-27Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of technical glitches and the submission of all documents before it, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh determination of the application.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 01 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs SAKSHAT JAIN, NEW DELHI

ITA 8682/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

MAHENDAR KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, DELHI

ITA 899/DEL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal quashed the assessments framed under Section 153C, holding that the AO's satisfaction was not recorded with sufficient clarity regarding the bearing of seized materials on the assessee's income, relying on the Saksham Commodities Ltd. case.

BHAVYA FOREX DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

ITA 5255/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind by the prescribed authority.

SAKSHAT JAIN,DELHI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, NEW DELHI

ITA 8309/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

SAKSHAT JAIN,DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, DELHI

ITA 8310/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

SUKHBIR SINGH,HARYANA vs ITO WARD -2, ROHTAK

ITA 768/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

SAKSHAT JAIN,DELHI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, NEW DELHI

ITA 8311/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The ITAT upheld the initiation of Section 153C proceedings, finding no merit in the assessee's challenge. Regarding the addition for bogus sales, the tribunal decided that a lump sum GP estimation of 1% or the declared GP rate, whichever is higher, would be appropriate, and this decision would not set a precedent.

AMIT KUMAR MITTAL HUF,MEERUT vs ITO, MEERUT

ITA 5212/DEL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2019-2020Allowed

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

SANJEEV KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs ITO WARD 2(2)(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 5273/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete incriminating material to support the on-money allegation. There was no actual evidence presented against the assessee to substantiate the claim.

LAKHVINDER,PANIPAT vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PANIPAT

ITA 5281/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an accretion to the value and part of enhanced compensation, following Supreme Court decisions. The PCIT's order, based on audit objections and potentially distinguishable High Court rulings, was not sustainable.

AJAYVISION EDUCATION PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs ITO, WARD-73(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3373/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence. The CIT(A) was also directed to decide on the issue of jurisdiction.

MAMTA CHAUDHARY,GHAZIABAD vs ITO WARD 2(1)(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 5131/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

BRAHAM PARKASH,GURGAON vs ITO WARD 1(3) GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 5230/DEL/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer's view was based on Supreme Court decisions affirming that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation. The Tribunal distinguished the High Court decisions relied upon by the PCIT.