ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business and the lack of dispute regarding sales. Considering divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, a lumpsum disallowance of 1% of the disputed purchases was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bona fide mistake by the professional. In the interest of justice, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were void ab initio due to the invalid approval under Section 151 based on incorrect facts. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions on grounds different from those that formed the basis of the original reasons recorded for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were void ab initio due to the invalid approval under Section 151 based on incorrect facts. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make additions on grounds different from those that formed the basis of the original reasons recorded for reopening.

The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable in law because the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the corresponding limb(s) under Section 271AAB. The Revenue's contentions were rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the seized documents, even with signatures and details, did not conclusively prove who paid or received loans or agreed to pay interest. The tribunal emphasized that Section 292C presumption applies only to the searched party, and additions must be based on specific seized material.

The ITAT held that the seized documents, even with signatures and details, did not conclusively prove who paid or received loans or agreed to pay interest. The tribunal emphasized that Section 292C presumption applies only to the searched party, and additions must be based on specific seized material.

The ITAT held that the seized documents, even with signatures and details, did not conclusively prove who paid or received loans or agreed to pay interest. The tribunal emphasized that Section 292C presumption applies only to the searched party, and additions must be based on specific seized material.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer, after the remand, verified and accepted the assessee's entire purchases claim, the disallowance made earlier was rendered infructuous. Consequently, the impugned disallowance was deleted in its entirety.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not properly establish that the seized material pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on their total income. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not properly establish that the seized material pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on their total income. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the commission income component at 0.4%, referencing a similar assessment in the succeeding assessment year. The addition was to be recomputed accordingly.

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(ii) of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire reopening process.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of sourcing from unregistered dealers and the divergent views on bogus purchases. It decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, treating it as just and proper without setting a precedent.

The Tribunal found that while sourcing from unregistered dealers was possible, the entire 8% disallowance was not justified. It decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 2.5% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied under Section 270A of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) deleted the penalty for multiple reasons, including that the issue was a debatable question of law, the AO had not specified the relevant clause of Section 270A(2), and the assessee had disclosed all material facts with a bona fide belief regarding taxability. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for not offering the income to tax was bona fide and based on judicial precedents. It also observed that the taxability of revenue had been resolved through MAP, which did not mention any penalty, and the order giving effect to the MAP resolution also omitted any mention of penalty. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that a debatable issue or disclosure of all facts does not ipso facto lead to a penalty. The Tribunal relied on decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier years and other judicial pronouncements emphasizing that mere agreement to additions does not imply concealment and that payment of tax and interest does not automatically lead to penalty unless unearthing by authorities is evident. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's sales were not questioned and that sourcing from unregistered dealers was possible. A lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's assessment order for AY 2016-17 accepted a profit rate of 2.63% on turnover. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to apply the same profit rate of 2.63% to the current case instead of the 8% addition.

The Tribunal held that the order of the PCIT was not sustainable. The interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court decisions.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the related quantum additions had been deleted by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to quantify the escaped income in the reasons recorded for reopening vitiates the entire proceedings. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on June 29, 2021, was beyond the period of limitation for AY 2015-16, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the notice and the reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification and reconciliation to avoid double addition. The AO was directed to ensure no double addition for export sales in consequential proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification and reconciliation to avoid double addition. The AO was directed to ensure no double addition for export sales in consequential proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification and reconciliation to avoid double addition. The AO was directed to ensure no double addition for export sales in consequential proceedings.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering illness as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO had misquoted facts regarding the occasion of receiving the gifts and that the assessee had provided evidence of receiving the jewellery on his own marriage in 1982 and as inherited property. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's attempt to submit a valuation report and found merit in the explanation for not filing wealth tax returns.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was due to potential communication gaps with the virtual hearing mechanism, aiming for a just outcome.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals. As a result, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lacs and the period of limitation under Section 149(1)(a) had expired. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering illness as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18, the tax rate under section 115BBE is not applicable. It also held that an addition under section 68 is unsustainable if there was no actual receipt of cash during the relevant financial year, but only a book entry based on an uncashed cheque.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the ineffective service of notices. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for de-novo consideration to provide an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was recorded beyond the prescribed time limit, thus vitiating the assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 153C was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was issued without jurisdiction as it was issued after April 1, 2021, when the provision was amended, and the satisfaction note was recorded after this date. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153C was quashed.

The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application filed by the assessee. After hearing the Learned DR, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was issued without jurisdiction as it was issued after April 1, 2021, when the provision was amended, and the satisfaction note was recorded after this date. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 153C was quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted an opportunity of being heard and to submit evidence.

The Tribunal held that the impugned addition of Rs.90,96,000/- was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that both the lower authorities had relied more on assumptions and presumptions rather than discussing any incriminating material that directly indicated the assessee had made the alleged 'on-money' payments to the developer. The assessment order and the lower appellate discussion lacked any actual evidence to substantiate the allegation of 'on-money' payment against the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the addition made for the financial year 2019-20 and deleted it in its entirety. The ratio decidendi is that additions based on mere assumptions and presumptions, without concrete evidence, are liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), finding the explanation provided by the assessee to be genuine. The Tribunal held that to prevent a miscarriage of justice, the assessee should be granted a further opportunity to represent its case. Consequently, both appeals were remitted back to the file of the Learned CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to finalize the issues afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and considering the evidence on record, or any other evidence the assessee might choose to file. This included the appeal challenging the penalty order under Section 271AAC(1), which was also remitted for fresh consideration. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the date of handing over seized material by the AO of the searched person to the AO of the non-searched person should be considered the 'date of search' for Section 153C. Consequently, the assessment year under appeal was found to be outside the prescribed limitation period.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2017-18, the tax rate under section 115BBE is not applicable. It also held that an addition under section 68 is unsustainable if there was no actual receipt of cash during the relevant financial year, but only a book entry based on an uncashed cheque.