ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have admitted the additional evidence and decided the appeals on merits. The orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have admitted the additional evidence and decided the appeals on merits. The orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order was a non-speaking order. Therefore, to do justice, the issue was restored to the NFAC for a fresh decision after granting a final opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for the immovable property as it was already recorded in the assessee's balance sheet as a business expense, preventing double addition. For the short-term borrowings, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the search was initiated after April 1, 2021, making the provision inapplicable. Furthermore, the penalty order was quashed as it was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the search was initiated after April 1, 2021, making the provision inapplicable. Furthermore, the penalty order was quashed as it was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2018, was issued in the name of Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, who had expired on January 19, 2016. Following the Delhi High Court's judgment in Dharamraj vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 issued to a deceased assessee is null and void. The Court in Dharamraj vs. ITO had stated that the issuance of a notice under Section 148 is the foundation for reopening an assessment, and the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person, not a dead person. This is a condition precedent to the notice being valid in law. The Tribunal further noted that Section 159 of the Act does not apply as proceedings were not initiated against the assessee when alive, and the legal representatives did not step into the shoes of the deceased assessee in this context. The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court's view that Section 292B and Section 292BB of the Act are inapplicable to notices issued to a dead person or to legal representatives in such circumstances. Consequently, the impugned notice dated March 31, 2018, was held to be null and void, and all consequential proceedings and assessment orders were set aside. The grounds of appeal were accepted.

The Tribunal held that the recording of a satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person is a mandatory prerequisite for assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C. Since this note was not provided to the assessee and could not be produced by the department, the assessment was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including an agreement for sale of immovable property and supporting bank statements, to establish the genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously set aside the quantum assessment order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. Since the penalty order's basis was the quantum assessment, the penalty order lost its substratum.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was initiated on borrowed satisfaction and without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The addition was quashed as it was bad in law.

The Tribunal followed its own precedent from earlier assessment years and estimated the Gross Profit at 8% for the current year, considering the assessee's line of business. The addition made by the AO and the enhancement by the CIT(A) were modified based on this estimation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should focus on the objects and genuineness of the trust's activities, not on examining the application of funds as an Assessing Officer would. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication due to lack of adequate opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance under Section 14A as there was no exempt income. It set aside the EPF issue to the AO for verification of cheque tendering date. The ad-hoc disallowance was partly allowed by reducing it to 2% of the expense.

The Tribunal held that the services provided were for the use of a standard, non-customized facility and did not make available technical knowledge or skills to the customers. Therefore, the receipts did not constitute 'fees for included services' under the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a registered stockbroker and SME Market Maker, and the transactions were genuine. Therefore, the LTCG was exempt under Section 10(38), and the consequential addition for commission was also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to partly sustain the addition on unexplained cash, dividing it among four family members and allowing a reasonable allowance. For the jewellery, the Tribunal deleted the addition, considering the family's eligibility for rebate under CBDT Circular No. 1916 and the family's status.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as the Assessing Officer had already modified it based on the DVO's report through a rectification order. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order lacked merit.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and a non-application of mind. It was held that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a right of every taxpayer.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the applications without due consideration of facts and a non-application of mind. It was held that a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a right of every taxpayer.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a dissolution clause in the trust deed is not a valid ground for rejecting registration, especially after the introduction of Section 115TD. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and the Bombay High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search for the assessee was 15.03.2022, which is after 01.04.2021. Therefore, Section 153C was inapplicable, and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search for the assessee was 15.03.2022, which is after 01.04.2021. Therefore, Section 153C was inapplicable, and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search for the assessee was 15.03.2022, which is after 01.04.2021. Therefore, Section 153C was inapplicable, and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search for the assessee was 15.03.2022, which is after 01.04.2021. Therefore, Section 153C was inapplicable, and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search for the assessee was 15.03.2022, which is after 01.04.2021. Therefore, Section 153C was inapplicable, and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was justified, the estimation of profit by the lower authorities was not based on sound reasoning or evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to a lower percentage of purchases, acknowledging the assessee's involvement in suspicious transactions but also noting the revenue's failure to provide specific evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was justified, the estimation of profit by the lower authorities was not based on sound reasoning or evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to a lower percentage of purchases, acknowledging the assessee's involvement in suspicious transactions but also noting the revenue's failure to provide specific evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the rejection of books of accounts under Section 145(3) was justified, the estimation of profit by the lower authorities was not based on sound reasoning or evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to a lower percentage of purchases, acknowledging the assessee's involvement in suspicious transactions but also noting the revenue's failure to provide specific evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely based on the presence of religious objects, especially when the assessee had been granted registration in previous years. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's activities benefited the public at large and were not restricted to any specific community.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening lacked a live link and nexus to escapement of income, as the information was based on an FIR that was later quashed due to settlement. Furthermore, the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening by passing a speaking order, which is a fatal procedural error.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's approach of computing the Arm's Length Price (ALP) for distribution operations based on the Berry Ratio as a Profit Level Indicator (PLI) was correct. It also found that the rejection of the Berry Ratio by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) was flawed.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. For AY 2016-17, the assessment was made without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2), rendering it without jurisdiction. Similar issues regarding limitation and jurisdiction were found for AY 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. For AY 2016-17, the assessment was made without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2), rendering it without jurisdiction. Similar issues regarding limitation and jurisdiction were found for AY 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. For AY 2016-17, the assessment was made without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2), rendering it without jurisdiction. Similar issues regarding limitation and jurisdiction were found for AY 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that the AO obtaining prior approval from a supervisory authority for an assessment under Section 143(3) (following a survey under Section 133A) was not legally permissible and vitiated the assessment. This action was considered an interference and abdication of the AO's quasi-judicial powers.

The Tribunal held that the expression 'a residential house' in the unamended Section 54(1) includes more than one residential house, and the amendment substituting 'one residential house' was prospective. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption on investments in multiple properties.

The Tribunal held that cash withdrawal from a bank account by itself is not an expenditure. To make an addition under Section 69C, the AO needs to prove that the amount was actually spent on services or property.

The Tribunal held that the AO obtaining prior approval from a supervisory authority for an assessment under Section 143(3), when not statutorily required, vitiates the assessment order. This is considered an interference and abdication of quasi-judicial powers.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C was invalid because the notice was issued after April 1, 2021, and should have been issued under Section 148, with assessment under Section 147. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that notices under Section 153C issued after April 1, 2021, were invalid and should have been issued under Section 148, with assessment under Section 147. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the AO is illegal. It also found that insufficient time was given for reply to the show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the matter regarding the assessee's income and expenditure required further inquiry to determine the charitable nature of the trust. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that since the amount was received through banking channels and the donor's identity was established, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not imposable, even if the genuineness of the gift was not fully accepted. The impugned penalty orders were set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the Revenue failed to rebut the findings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence, and the AO had not conducted independent investigations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had furnished all relevant documentary evidence and discharged the initial burden. The Revenue failed to rebut the findings or provide contrary material.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was unsustainable because the addition made in the assessment did not align with the sole reason recorded for reopening. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully discharge her onus of proof, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 32,03,000/-. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be under normal provisions as the transactions predated its effective date.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the PCIT for reopening the assessment under Section 147/148 was mechanical and invalid, following a Delhi High Court judgment. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It found that the purchases were accounted for, payments were made through banking channels, and the stock registers reflected the consumption of these purchases. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue had not adequately tested the supplier's confirmation and affidavit.