ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was time-barred, as it was issued after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the assessment proceedings arising from this notice were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that protective additions are unsustainable when the income is already taxed substantively. It also ruled that unexplained cash credits and interest thereon should be deleted if the creditors are directors and their identity/creditworthiness is not seriously disputed. Depreciation claims were allowed, and certain business expenses were partially disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 221(1) could not be sustained as the issue of reopening had become debatable after its admission by the High Court. Therefore, the penalties were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 12AB(4) for cancellation and that the alleged diversion of funds was not unsustainable. The scope of inquiry for registration is limited to the objects and genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by expanding the scope of limited scrutiny without following CBDT circulars. This action was deemed unsustainable in law, following established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that protective additions are unsustainable when the income is already taxed substantively. It also ruled that unexplained cash credits and interest thereon should be deleted if the creditors are directors and their identity/creditworthiness is not seriously disputed. Depreciation claims were allowed, and certain business expenses were partially disallowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 221(1) could not be sustained as the issue of reopening had become debatable after its admission by the High Court. Therefore, the penalties were reversed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without providing an opportunity to rectify the mistake in Form 35 and without adjudicating the merits of the penalty. The issue was remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to substantiate the profit estimation with methodical reasoning and that the rejection of books was based on superfluous observations. The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO deserved to be deleted entirely, not just reduced.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ad hoc estimation for selling expenses was not based on any scientific or reasoned basis and was purely subjective. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue failed to provide demonstrative evidence for the higher construction cost per square foot.

The Tribunal held that the AO's inferences based solely on the low income reported by the lender companies were not sustainable. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the conditions of Section 68, including identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was vitiated due to ambiguous show-cause notices and being passed against a non-existent entity. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had succeeded in the earlier round of litigation regarding the deductibility of license fees.

The Tribunal held that protective additions are unsustainable when the income is already taxed substantively. It also ruled that unexplained cash credits and interest thereon should be deleted if the creditors are directors and their identity/creditworthiness is not seriously disputed. Depreciation claims were allowed, and certain business expenses were partially disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to deduct TDS on EDC payments of Rs. 18,00,000/- and decided this issue in favor of the Revenue. For the remaining disputed payments of Rs. 1,15,28,550/-, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination due to the assessee's admission of making these payments for the first time before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the amount in question represented agricultural expenditure and not unexplained income. The assessee's explanation of a bonafide clerical mistake, supported by professional certificates and financial documents, was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 221(1) could not be sustained as the underlying reopening issue had become debatable after its admission by the High Court. The penalty orders were reversed based on this reasoning.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence of cash sales. The Assessing Officer did not bring on record any contradictory evidence, making the addition legally unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach. It found that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in a summary manner without adequately considering the assessee's grounds. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that protective additions are unsustainable when the income is already taxed substantively. It also ruled that unexplained cash credits and interest thereon should be deleted if the creditors are directors and their identity/creditworthiness is not seriously disputed. Depreciation claims were allowed, and certain business expenses were partially disallowed.

The Tribunal held that differences in turnover reporting between GST and Income Tax returns are not a basis for addition unless the Income Tax Act specifically mandates it. The difference arose due to the differing recognition of income under different statutes (advance receipt basis for GST vs. percentage of completion method for Income Tax).

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to substantiate the profit estimation with methodical reasoning and that the rejection of books was based on superfluous observations. The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO deserved to be deleted entirely, not just reduced.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 12AB(4) for cancellation and that the alleged diversion of funds was not unsustainable. The scope of inquiry for registration is limited to the objects and genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was based on a computational mistake that had been identified and conceded in earlier proceedings. The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 263 powers was not justified in this case, as the AO had accepted the revised figures with only minor typographical errors.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's assertion regarding the maternity home's ownership and its lack of connection to the assessee required proper evidence. Since this evidence was not submitted to the lower authority, the case was restored.

The Tribunal found that the additions were predominantly factual and that the assessee had furnished substantial additional evidence. Considering the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity and the AO's ex-parte assessment, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a genuine reason for the delay, which was on account of a pending rectification application. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal found that the substantive claim regarding the nature and utilization of the amount required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay was sufficient cause. Technicalities should not defeat substantial rights of an assessee, and the delay should have been condoned.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 147, specifically the first proviso, was fatal to the validity of the reopening. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the ten-year block period for assessment under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of handing over of documents or the satisfaction note, not the date of search. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, even though an SLP was filed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the ten-year block period for assessment under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of handing over of documents or the satisfaction note, not the date of search. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, even though an SLP was filed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 147, specifically the first proviso, was fatal to the validity of the reopening. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 147, specifically the first proviso, was fatal to the validity of the reopening. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding it well-reasoned and justified. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment year 2014-15 was outside the permissible block period for assessment under Section 153C.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessment years in question fell beyond the permissible 10-year period for assessments under Section 153C.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessment years in question fell beyond the permissible 10-year period for assessments under Section 153C.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the ten-year block period for assessment under Section 153C should be reckoned from the date of handing over of documents or the satisfaction note, not the date of search. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, even though an SLP was filed.

The Tribunal held that differences in turnover reporting between GST and Income Tax returns are not a basis for addition unless the Income Tax Act specifically mandates it. The difference arose due to the differing recognition of income under different statutes (advance receipt basis for GST vs. percentage of completion method for Income Tax).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for late deposit of PF and ESI is not legally sustainable. The issue is settled by various judicial pronouncements, including the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Officer's nor the CIT(A)'s estimation was fully acceptable. It decided to estimate GP at 5%, 3.5%, and 5% of the impugned additions, inclusive of disclosed GP, to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that neither the Assessing Officer's nor the CIT(A)'s estimation was fully acceptable. It decided to estimate GP at 5%, 3.5%, and 5% of the impugned additions, inclusive of disclosed GP, to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for holding the cash for cancer treatment to be plausible. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 19,45,000/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that while stringent provisions exist to curb tax evasion, the department's system should have flagged inoperative PANs. The assessee is not liable for higher TDS if the deductee has declared the income and paid taxes. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that while stringent provisions exist to curb tax evasion, the department's system should have flagged inoperative PANs. The assessee is not liable for higher TDS if the deductee has declared the income and paid taxes. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that while stringent provisions exist to curb tax evasion, the department's system should have flagged inoperative PANs. The assessee is not liable for higher TDS if the deductee has declared the income and paid taxes. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued in violation of Section 151 of the Act, as the required approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner was not obtained for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.