ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than concrete incriminating material. There was no actual evidence presented to support the allegation of on-money payment by the assessee.

The Tribunal addressed five issues. Firstly, regarding the enhancement of profit attribution to the DAPE from 8.75% to 15%, the Tribunal found that while MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP, there is no reason to deviate from the established rate where there is no change in facts. The Tribunal noted that the AO's enhancement was based on statements indicating activities beyond the TPSR. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's DAPE's activities, as listed by the AO, were essentially promotional and marketing activities that fall within the scope of services mentioned in the TPSR and were part of the functions of a DAPE. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the ground challenging the enhancement and dismissed it. Secondly, concerning the credit of tax paid by the Indian AE, the Tribunal agreed with the AO that MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP. However, it held that there is no reason to deviate from the MAP resolutions in assessment years not covered by MAP where there is no change in facts. Since it was agreed in principle that the benefit of taxes paid by the PE in relation to advertisement income would be allowed, the same benefit can be extended to the assessment year not covered by MAP, as no material was presented to show otherwise. This issue was restored to the AO for verification and quantification. Thirdly, regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held it to be consequential and mandatory, dismissing the ground. Fourthly, concerning the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, the Tribunal deemed the challenge premature at this stage and dismissed the ground. The appeals for AY 2017-18 to 2021-22 were decided mutatis mutandis on identical grounds. The Tribunal explicitly stated that written submissions filed after the hearing were not considered as they were not in sync with oral submissions. The operative direction for the tax credit issue was to restore it to the AO for verification and quantification.

The Tribunal held that the omission to issue a notice under Section 143(2) is a substantive defect that renders the assessment void ab initio. Participation of the assessee in the proceedings does not cure this defect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the renewal application without proper appreciation of evidence and by drawing adverse inferences without adequate opportunity. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should have considered the prima facie genuineness of activities at the registration stage.

The Tribunal addressed five issues. Firstly, regarding the enhancement of profit attribution to the DAPE from 8.75% to 15%, the Tribunal found that while MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP, there is no reason to deviate from the established rate where there is no change in facts. The Tribunal noted that the AO's enhancement was based on statements indicating activities beyond the TPSR. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's DAPE's activities, as listed by the AO, were essentially promotional and marketing activities that fall within the scope of services mentioned in the TPSR and were part of the functions of a DAPE. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the ground challenging the enhancement and dismissed it. Secondly, concerning the credit of tax paid by the Indian AE, the Tribunal agreed with the AO that MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP. However, it held that there is no reason to deviate from the MAP resolutions in assessment years not covered by MAP where there is no change in facts. Since it was agreed in principle that the benefit of taxes paid by the PE in relation to advertisement income would be allowed, the same benefit can be extended to the assessment year not covered by MAP, as no material was presented to show otherwise. This issue was restored to the AO for verification and quantification. Thirdly, regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held it to be consequential and mandatory, dismissing the ground. Fourthly, concerning the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, the Tribunal deemed the challenge premature at this stage and dismissed the ground. The appeals for AY 2017-18 to 2021-22 were decided mutatis mutandis on identical grounds. The Tribunal explicitly stated that written submissions filed after the hearing were not considered as they were not in sync with oral submissions. The operative direction for the tax credit issue was to restore it to the AO for verification and quantification.

The Tribunal held that reopening under Section 148 cannot be made merely for verification purposes. A notice under Section 148 is void ab initio if issued without a reasonable belief of escaped income based on new, tangible material.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It held that while MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered, there was no reason to deviate from the agreed profit attribution rate of 8.75% without new material. The issue of tax credit for taxes paid by the Indian AE was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal addressed five issues. Firstly, regarding the enhancement of profit attribution to the DAPE from 8.75% to 15%, the Tribunal found that while MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP, there is no reason to deviate from the established rate where there is no change in facts. The Tribunal noted that the AO's enhancement was based on statements indicating activities beyond the TPSR. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's DAPE's activities, as listed by the AO, were essentially promotional and marketing activities that fall within the scope of services mentioned in the TPSR and were part of the functions of a DAPE. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the ground challenging the enhancement and dismissed it. Secondly, concerning the credit of tax paid by the Indian AE, the Tribunal agreed with the AO that MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP. However, it held that there is no reason to deviate from the MAP resolutions in assessment years not covered by MAP where there is no change in facts. Since it was agreed in principle that the benefit of taxes paid by the PE in relation to advertisement income would be allowed, the same benefit can be extended to the assessment year not covered by MAP, as no material was presented to show otherwise. This issue was restored to the AO for verification and quantification. Thirdly, regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held it to be consequential and mandatory, dismissing the ground. Fourthly, concerning the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, the Tribunal deemed the challenge premature at this stage and dismissed the ground. The appeals for AY 2017-18 to 2021-22 were decided mutatis mutandis on identical grounds. The Tribunal explicitly stated that written submissions filed after the hearing were not considered as they were not in sync with oral submissions. The operative direction for the tax credit issue was to restore it to the AO for verification and quantification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, stating that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, with three opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the possibility of communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- was correctly deleted by the CIT(A) as it was a double addition, given that the assessee had duly accounted for this sum in its regular books of accounts as "miscellaneous income". The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this finding. Regarding the addition of Rs. 15,67,23,540/- for investment in shares and securities and Rs. 82,870/- as profit on sale of shares, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, noting that these additions were not based on the relevant seized material found during the search. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. In the assessee's cross-objection, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the charging of interest under Section 158BFA(1) regarding the delay in filing the return, as per a previous co-ordinate bench order. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to compute the impugned interest or surcharge as per law, referencing the ratio in Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I vs Vatika Townships (P.) Ltd. [[2014] 49 taxmann.com 249 (SC)], holding that subsequent amendments should not fasten interest liability. The cross-objection was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's explanation and the principle of substantial justice. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly applied their mind to the issues and set aside the order for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal addressed five issues. Firstly, regarding the enhancement of profit attribution to the DAPE from 8.75% to 15%, the Tribunal found that while MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP, there is no reason to deviate from the established rate where there is no change in facts. The Tribunal noted that the AO's enhancement was based on statements indicating activities beyond the TPSR. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee's DAPE's activities, as listed by the AO, were essentially promotional and marketing activities that fall within the scope of services mentioned in the TPSR and were part of the functions of a DAPE. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the ground challenging the enhancement and dismissed it. Secondly, concerning the credit of tax paid by the Indian AE, the Tribunal agreed with the AO that MAP resolutions are not binding for years not covered by MAP. However, it held that there is no reason to deviate from the MAP resolutions in assessment years not covered by MAP where there is no change in facts. Since it was agreed in principle that the benefit of taxes paid by the PE in relation to advertisement income would be allowed, the same benefit can be extended to the assessment year not covered by MAP, as no material was presented to show otherwise. This issue was restored to the AO for verification and quantification. Thirdly, regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held it to be consequential and mandatory, dismissing the ground. Fourthly, concerning the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A, the Tribunal deemed the challenge premature at this stage and dismissed the ground. The appeals for AY 2017-18 to 2021-22 were decided mutatis mutandis on identical grounds. The Tribunal explicitly stated that written submissions filed after the hearing were not considered as they were not in sync with oral submissions. The operative direction for the tax credit issue was to restore it to the AO for verification and quantification.

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 fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the issues regarding the recasting of financial results and cessation of liability required further examination. Therefore, both issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not doubt the core activities of the assessee but only objected to income from other activities. The matter was remanded for reconsideration after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was recorded after the permissible period, and the income escaping assessment was below the threshold of Rs. 50 lakh for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking, cryptic order by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issues on merits. The order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits after considering the available material, rather than dismissing it ex parte. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note was recorded on 15.09.2022, making AY 2023-24 the relevant year for computation. The income escaping assessment for the impugned AYs was less than Rs. 50 lakh, thus falling outside the ten-year block. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was invalid.

The Tribunal found it fit to give the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claim by admitting additional evidence. The issues were remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication after admitting the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were secular and for the benefit of the public at large, promoting harmony and community services. The rejection of registration and approval by the tax authorities was considered erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order dated 19.02.2026 was barred by limitation. It found that the DRP directions dated 29.12.2025 were uploaded on 30.12.2025. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, the AO had to pass the final assessment order within a specified period from the receipt of DRP directions. The Tribunal noted that the AO passed the order on 19.02.2026, which was beyond the prescribed limitation. The Tribunal relied on the principle that the time of uploading the DRP order onto the ITBA portal is the relevant date for reckoning the limitation period, citing Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, Ground No. 3 of the appeal, concerning limitation, was accepted, and the impugned assessment order was set aside as null and void. Consequently, other grounds of appeal became academic. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive transfer pricing and computation issues due to the order being time-barred. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed beyond the statutory limitation period is invalid.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition for the assessment year had been deleted in a previous appeal. Consequently, the basis for the penalty was removed.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to file new evidence. The CIT(A) was also permitted to call for a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the impugned addition of unexplained investment is not sustainable in law. The primary reason for reopening the assessment, as recorded by the Assessing Officer, was the purchase of shares of One 97 Comm Private Limited through an SPA from Mountain Capital Fund LP. However, the addition ultimately made was for shares acquired through direct subscription. This significant divergence between the reason for reopening and the actual addition made, which was not rebutted by the revenue, rendered the reopening invalid. The Tribunal relied on various High Court judgments, including ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ranbaxy Laboratory CIT, PCIT v. Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd., CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., and CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education, to conclude that a reopening not leading to an addition based on the recorded reasons is not sustainable. Consequently, the reopening and the consequent addition were quashed. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was vitiated by non-application of mind and assumption of jurisdiction on incorrect facts. The AO failed to examine the underlying material and consider the assessee's objections, making the reassessment proceedings unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the cash was recorded in the assessee's books of account and an explanation was provided, Section 69A was not applicable. Consequently, Section 115BBE, which applies to income deemed unexplained under Section 69A, was also not applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the notices issued under Section 153C were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the prescribed period, quashing the consequent assessment orders.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the notices issued under Section 153C were barred by limitation as they were issued beyond the prescribed period, quashing the consequent assessment orders.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue wished to withdraw its appeal. Based on the submissions of both parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law as the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and no new facts or reasons were provided.

The Tribunal held that initiating fresh reassessment proceedings while existing ones are pending is without jurisdiction. The second notice was therefore unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were secular and for the benefit of the public at large, promoting harmony and community services. The rejection of registration and approval by the tax authorities was considered erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act renders the reassessment proceedings invalid, as confirmed by the AO's admission in the remand report. The assessment framed without this mandatory notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the proper approval as required by Section 151 of the Act. The approval was obtained from an authority lower than what was mandated for the amount involved and the time elapsed.

The Tribunal decided on the taxability of offshore supplies, supervisory activities, and design revenues, considering the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It also addressed issues related to interest under various sections of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the sales to M/s Krishna Sales Corporation could not be substantiated and were sales outside the books. A GP estimation of 3% was deemed to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had made sufficient inquiries and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the cost of improvement and the claim for deduction under Section 54 were supported by evidence and judicial precedents.

The ITAT held that while the assessee may have had shortcomings in filing the new evidence under Rule 46A, the CIT(A) should have appreciated the attempt to submit supporting documents and potentially given an opportunity. The matter was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiries into the affairs of the buyer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiries into the affairs of the buyer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer did not conduct independent inquiries into the affairs of the buyer. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained regular books of accounts and the corresponding receipts were reflected in bank statements, the entire sales could not be treated as unexplained income. Only the commission earned on these sales could be added.

The Tribunal decided on the taxability of offshore supplies, supervisory activities, and design revenues, considering the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It also addressed issues related to interest under various sections of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal decided on the taxability of offshore supplies, supervisory activities, and design revenues, considering the India-Italy Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It also addressed issues related to interest under various sections of the Income Tax Act.