ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

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.

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.

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 Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to incorrect factual findings, non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding prior approval, and incorrect identification of the assessee. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts regarding compensation received under the Land Acquisition Act. These decisions were made after amendments to Section 56(2)(vii) and Section 57(4) of the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment was granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, which was required for notices issued beyond three years. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was invalid and the assumption of jurisdiction was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond the permissible time limit. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings were vitiated and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to incorrect factual findings, non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding prior approval, and incorrect identification of the assessee. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,42,444.55, with the rider that this decision would not be treated as a precedent. The addition made on account of commission at 2% was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire reassessment process.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be genuine. Therefore, the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum order was set aside, the penalty order became infructuous and lost its force. Therefore, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, decided the appeals. For AY 2011-12 and 2014-15, the assessee's appeals were allowed. For AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to make submissions.

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to respond to future notices.

The ITAT held that the provision for warranty is allowable as a deduction on an accrual basis, and the disallowance of royalty was incorrect. The tribunal also addressed issues related to R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB).

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are not sustainable if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition based on the sole reason for reopening. The reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was illegal as it was based on an ad-hoc estimation and judicial precedents suggest no penalty can be levied in such cases. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the same income cannot be taxed twice. Since the substantive addition was confirmed in the hands of Sh. Ashish Garg, the protective addition in the assessee's hands was rightly deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the due date for filing the application was extended by CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 to 30.06.2024. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, decided the appeals. For AY 2011-12 and 2014-15, the assessee's appeals were allowed. For AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The ITAT held that the provision for warranty is allowable as a deduction on an accrual basis, and the disallowance of royalty was incorrect. The tribunal also addressed issues related to R&D expenditure under Section 35(2AB).

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for assessment under Section 153C starts from the date of the order under Section 127, when the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for assessment under Section 153C starts from the date of the order under Section 127, when the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for assessment under Section 153C starts from the date of the order under Section 127, when the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for assessment under Section 153C starts from the date of the order under Section 127, when the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bonafide and sufficient. The Tribunal then dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances based on previous consistent orders in the assessee's own cases.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for assessment under Section 153C starts from the date of the order under Section 127, when the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to make submissions, violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal found that accumulated past savings of the assessee's late father and crop produce could not be entirely ruled out. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs was deemed just and proper, with the relief granted to the assessee being Rs. 36,42,765/-.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for assessment under Section 153C starts from the date of the order under Section 127, when the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was unsustainable as the AO made an addition on a different ground than the one for which the assessment was reopened. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of gratuity payment was illegal. The payment was made directly to the employee and, following judicial precedents, should be allowed as a business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and not on a best judgment basis, the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was not sustainable. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with a further opportunity to represent their case before the authorities below. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee and examining the evidence.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in this case, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The penalty order was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to incorrect factual findings, non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding prior approval, and incorrect identification of the assessee. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The CIT(A) had correctly followed the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. and declared the assessment order illegal. The pendency of an SLP against the High Court's judgment did not affect its validity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an order without proper adjudication and in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on specific issues.

The Tribunal found that the bank account belonged to the assessee's deceased husband and the income had been assessed in his hands previously. The assessment orders passed against the assessee were deemed illegal.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the same assessment year had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also deemed consequential and ordered to follow the same path.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a complete documentary trail, including sales invoices, ledger accounts, and cash book entries, to substantiate the sale of leftover materials. The Tribunal found that the transactions were recorded in the books of accounts and GST was collected, thus the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire reassessment process.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for assessment under Section 153C starts from the date of the order under Section 127, when the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessment year 2013-14 was outside the ten-year block period for assessment under section 153C. This was because the reckoning of the block period should be based on the date of receipt of seized material by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person, not the date of the search.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was part of an accommodation entry provider group, the entire amount could not be added. Instead, only the commission element embedded in the entries provided should be considered as income.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were quashed by the ITAT, the penalty order levied under Section 271(1)(c) and the CIT(A)'s order on penalty cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal, with the concurrence of the Third Member, decided the appeals. For AY 2011-12 and 2014-15, the assessee's appeals were allowed. For AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the assessee's appeals were partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to make submissions, violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of INR 10,41,840/- under Section 40(a)(ia). The payments, though claimed as commission, were found to be salary and tax at source under Section 192 was not deducted, making the disallowance valid.