ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

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 found a dearth of fact-finding at lower levels due to the assessee's non-response to CIT(A) notices. It noted that for AY 2015-16, the AO accepted the returned loss. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found a dearth of fact-finding at lower levels due to the assessee's non-response to CIT(A) notices. Considering the totality of facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the share capital and investor's creditworthiness, and the assessee had responded to all queries. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT failed to conduct his own inquiry to establish an error.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(2)(a) is not applicable as it pertains to expenses, not income. It also found that donations to other registered charitable entities are permissible applications of income. Consequently, the additions and denial of exemptions were not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause does not automatically disqualify a trust for registration, especially when the trust deed contains a dissolution clause ensuring assets are transferred to similar charitable entities. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on this ground.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the affidavit filed by the assessee. Considering the assessee is an individual and to provide an opportunity to contest on merits, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits. The assessee was given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause cannot be the sole ground for rejection. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the applications, considering the legal position on irrevocability, and also verify other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause cannot be the sole ground for rejection. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the applications, considering the legal position on irrevocability, and also verify other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 115 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical issues and lack of communication. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the rejection solely on the ground of absence of an irrevocability clause is not sustainable, following the Bombay High Court's decision. However, the CIT(Exemption) was directed to examine other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.

The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. The assessee had filed a letter dated July 28, 2026, requesting withdrawal of the appeal for reasons stated therein. The Senior DR for the revenue did not object to this request. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that the Tribunal has the power to allow the withdrawal of an appeal upon a valid request from the assessee, especially when the revenue has no objection. No specific issue was left undecided.

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 restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance and was given an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the rejection solely on the ground of absence of an irrevocability clause is not sustainable, following the Bombay High Court's decision. However, the CIT(Exemption) was directed to examine other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance and was given an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to make submissions. The assessee undertook to update their contact details for proper notice service.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the CIT(A) passed an order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The tribunal emphasized the need for a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-attendance was bad in law. The matter was restored to the PCIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the assessment order was passed without adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

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 upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A)/NFAC, agreeing that the assessee had not made any purchases from the concerned parties. Therefore, the disallowance of purchases was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that disallowing the claim of exemption under Section 11 is outside the scope of Section 143(1) processing, especially without providing an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee had a valid old registration and provisional new registration, making the denial unjustified.

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, citing recent Supreme Court judgments, held that condonation of delay is not a matter of right and requires a sufficient cause. Given the Revenue's persistent lethargy and lack of a valid explanation, the delay could not be condoned.

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 allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeal was filed with an incorrect PAN and a subsequent appeal had been filed with the correct PAN. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to this request. The Tribunal found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No other issues were decided or left undecided.

The Tribunal held that penalty for concealment cannot be imposed if there is no concealed income. Since the addition was deleted by the CIT(A) and accepted by the AO, the penalty was unwarranted.

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 notice under Section 153C was issued beyond the six assessment years preceding the relevant year of search, making the proceedings invalid. The appeal filed by the Revenue was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal was a material illegality as there was no proof of proper service of notices. The principle of natural justice requires an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal without proof of proper service of notices violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation satisfactory and adopting a liberal approach. The tribunal held that the ex-parte order violated the principles of natural justice and section 250(6) of the 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.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to make requisite compliance and granting them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to make requisite compliance and granting them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C assessments were invalid because the seized material did not pertain to the relevant assessment years. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal stated that a common satisfaction note without incriminating material for the specific assessment year vitiates the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C assessments were invalid because the seized material did not pertain to the relevant assessment years. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal stated that a common satisfaction note without incriminating material for the specific assessment year vitiates the proceedings.

The Tribunal decided to restore the penalty appeal to the CIT(A) as well. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate both the quantum and penalty appeals together.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow full exemption for leave encashment as per the revised limit notified by the Ministry of Finance. It also directed the AO to treat the ex-gratia compensation as fully exempt under Section 10(10B) based on previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the AO/TPO did not deliberately defy DRP directions. However, due to non-availability of segmental data for some comparables and lack of supporting evidence for corporate issues, the matter was restored to the AO/TPO for recomputation. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary details for working capital adjustments and corporate issues.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment order was vitiated due to a lack of valid approval under Section 151(ii) of the Act for the reopening. Consequently, the revision order by the PCIT was also deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's business activity and purchases were not doubted, the entire amount could not be sustained as an addition. The Tribunal decided that sustaining an addition of Rs. 30,00,000 would meet the ends of justice and Section 115BBE would not be applicable.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause does not automatically disqualify a trust for registration, especially when the trust deed contains a dissolution clause ensuring assets are transferred to similar charitable entities. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application solely on this ground.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) did not decide the case on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.