ITAT Delhi Judgments — July 2026

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 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 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 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 if purchases and sales are treated as accommodation entries, only the commission element should be assessed. The Assessing Officer was directed to assess the sum total of alleged purchases and sales at 1% or the declared GP component, whichever is higher.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merits, granting effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 54 cannot be denied merely because the reinvestment was made in the joint name of the assessee and his wife, provided the purchase consideration was invested out of the sale proceeds. The disallowance was deleted.

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 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 Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the repayment of loans was genuine and supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the additions were partly of a duplicate nature and partly consequential.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the repayment of loans was genuine and supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the additions were partly of a duplicate nature and partly consequential.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn and was dismissed as such.

The Tribunal held that the amount transferred to DUL represented income that accrued directly to DUL due to an overriding contractual title, not an application of income after accrual. The addition in the assessee's hands resulted in double taxation, which is impermissible.

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 decided that a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases would be just and proper, without setting a precedent. The assessee's book entries were rejected to this extent.

The Tribunal held that the land was rural agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed distance from municipal limits, thus not a capital asset. Consequently, the enhanced compensation and the interest awarded were not taxable.

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 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 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 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 reopening the assessment after four years without establishing failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts or without new material was beyond jurisdiction and constituted a change of opinion. It also held that the subsidy received was operating income, directly linked to distribution activities and compensation for unabsorbed costs, and thus the addition made by the AO was deleted.

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.

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 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 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 penalty notice issued under Section 270A was invalid because it did not specify whether the proceedings were for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income. This lack of specificity renders the penalty unsustainable.

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 lower appellate authority should have considered the delay and adjudicated the issues on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance was made without treating it as a precedent, and the assessee's book entries were rejected to that extent.

The Tribunal observed that the lower appellate authority failed to appreciate the reasonable cause for delay and did not decide the issues on merit. Therefore, the assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard on merit.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory period. Consequently, the assessment framed without a valid notice 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 found no merit in upholding the addition as no specific evidence was presented against the assessee to justify the Rs. 10 lakhs addition. Consequently, the addition was deleted.

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 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 held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,88,03,060/-. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted fact that the assessee was a resident of Vietnam during the impugned period, as evidenced by the Vietnam Tax Residency Certificate. The Tribunal referred to Article 4(1) of the India-Vietnam DTAA which qualifies the assessee as a resident of Vietnam. Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Delhi Tribunal in the cases of Yogesh Kotiyal vs. ACIT, Amit Laroya vs. ACIT, and Vishal Gulati v. ACIT, which held that salary income earned for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, even if received in India, provided the assessee is a non-resident and the services are rendered outside India. The Tribunal also cited the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Estienne Andreas and Others, upheld by the Supreme Court, and Karnataka High Court in Prahlad Vijendra Rao, and Calcutta High Court in Utanka Roy, reinforcing that the place of service rendering is material for determining the accrual of income. The Tribunal further noted that the Revenue itself had accepted the assessee's similar claim for AY 2019-20. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing an effective opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the circumstances of the director's illness and death, and the assessee's contention regarding the cash deposits. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the surrenders made by the partner were in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the firm. There was no corroborative evidence to link these surrenders to the firm's income, and the partner's subsequent retraction was supported by facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders by providing necessary details during appellate proceedings. The AO failed to make independent inquiries or provide contrary material.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) was invalid and defective. The AO had relied on external material beyond the seized documents, making the proceedings under Section 153C void ab initio.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Senior DR that inadvertent entries were made in Form No. 36 of the present appeal and that a fresh appeal with correct details had been filed. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances and granted permission for the withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No other issues were decided, and no specific principle (ratio) for future citation was established beyond the procedural aspect of withdrawing an appeal due to filing errors.

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

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