ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee is found to be providing accommodation entries, only the commission earned on such transactions is taxable. The Tribunal reduced the estimated commission income to 0.15% of the alleged accommodation entry value.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided reasonable cause for the failure to file the audit report on time, citing orders from the High Court and ongoing NCLT proceedings. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not imposable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have assisted the newly incorporated assessee or given them an opportunity to rectify the mistake in their application. The CIT(E) rejected the application without providing proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in rejecting the registration application without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The PCIT's reliance on unverified materials and denial of cross-examination vitiated the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that running a play school or providing primary education does not require affiliation with a competent authority. It further observed that pre-schooling is an integral part of education as envisaged under Section 2(15) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish that the assessee was the owner of the money received, and therefore, Section 69A was not applicable. The lender had treated the amount as a loan in its audited accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in re-characterizing the assessee as 'Religious-cum-charitable' without cogent material, especially given its consistent recognition as a charitable institution. The Tribunal found no substantial religious purpose in the assessee's objects.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in re-characterizing the assessee as 'Religious-cum-charitable' without cogent material, especially given its consistent recognition as a charitable institution. The Tribunal found no substantial religious purpose in the assessee's objects.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration with a direction to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the 639-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding no mala fides. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's ill health. It directed the AO to tax Rs. 4,88,000/- as on-money received on the sale of a plot and to compute capital gains on the sale of the plot, rather than taxing the entire sale proceeds. Additionally, Rs. 3,72,234/- was to be taxed as unexplained deficit cash.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was then remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of natural justice, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions for effective opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's arguments were not effectively controverted by the Revenue. It noted that the CIT(E) should examine the objects and genuineness of activities, and that the assessee's activities could fall under 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural lapse and should not deny the substantive right to claim FTC. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the AO was directed to consider the FTC claim after verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The reliance on expatriate employees' statements without concrete evidence of them acting on behalf of the assessee was deemed insufficient. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on the PE finding were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate commission income at 0.5% as justified, given the lack of proper books of account. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed. The penalty under Section 271AAC was also deleted as the addition was based on estimation, not concrete proof of concealment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate commission income at 0.5% as justified, given the lack of proper books of account. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed. The penalty under Section 271AAC was also deleted as the addition was based on estimation, not concrete proof of concealment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to make an addition on an independent issue when the original reasons for reopening were not addressed. The reassessment proceedings were quashed for being without valid jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The reliance on expatriate employees' statements without concrete evidence of them acting on behalf of the assessee was deemed insufficient. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on the PE finding were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that natural justice requires an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing an order. Since the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment application, the assessee deserves another opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's arguments were not effectively controverted by the Revenue. It noted that the CIT(E) should examine the objects and genuineness of activities, and that the assessee's activities could fall under 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate commission income at 0.5% as justified, given the lack of proper books of account. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed. The penalty under Section 271AAC was also deleted as the addition was based on estimation, not concrete proof of concealment.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to verify the assessee's claim regarding the double disallowance. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely based on the objects clause without verifying expenditure on religious activities. The amended Section 80G(5)(ii) allows up to 5% of total income for religious activities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The reliance on expatriate employees' statements without concrete evidence of them acting on behalf of the assessee was deemed insufficient. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on the PE finding were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The reliance on expatriate employees' statements without concrete evidence of them acting on behalf of the assessee was deemed insufficient. Consequently, transfer pricing adjustments based on the PE finding were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration solely based on the advancement of interest-free loans, especially when the assessee was engaged in substantial charitable activities in education. The Tribunal noted that deviations in fund utilization can be addressed at the assessment stage.

The Tribunal held that running a play school or providing primary education does not require affiliation with a competent authority. It further observed that pre-schooling is an integral part of education as envisaged under Section 2(15) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the registration solely based on the advancement of interest-free loans, especially when the assessee was engaged in substantial charitable activities in education. The Tribunal noted that deviations in fund utilization can be addressed at the assessment stage.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on suspicion without sufficient evidence and without granting a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a further opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on suspicion without sufficient evidence and without granting a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a further opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of a coordinate bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2017-18 (ITA No. 1053/Del/2022). The Tribunal noted that the AO/DRP had not brought on record any material or evidence to substantiate their claim that the assessee rendered any managerial, consultancy, or technical services to the Indian AEs through the expatriates. The Tribunal found that the payments made by the Indian AEs were a pure reimbursement of salary costs of expatriates, which were cross-charged by raising debit notes. It was held that these reimbursements could not be regarded as FTS in the hands of the assessee as they were taxable as salary in the hands of the expatriate employees. The Tribunal further observed that the expatriates worked under the direct control and supervision of the Indian AEs, who were the real and economic employers during the period of secondment. The Indian AEs had duly deducted tax under Section 192 on salaries paid to the expatriates and deposited the same, with the expatriates offering the entire salary income to tax. Consequently, the addition made on account of cross-charge by the assessee from its Indian AEs was deleted. The appeal on grounds 12 and 13 (charging of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings) were considered consequential.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A cannot be invoked based solely on third-party material without a clear nexus to the assessee. The additions were re-characterized as business income, not unexplained money, as the source was linked to alleged commercial activity.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was mechanical and failed to consider the business dynamics and receipt of funds from existing shareholders. It also ruled that advertisement expenses incurred for marketing commercial space are deductible even if the occupancy certificate was obtained later, as long as rental income is offered as business income.

The Tribunal held that the issue of employee cost reimbursement being taxable as FTS is squarely covered by the decision of a coordinate bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal respectfully followed the finding in that order, noting that there was no change in facts and circumstances for the subject year, as admitted by the Assessing Officer (AO) and Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The previous order had held that the expatriates were employees of the Indian AEs during their transfer, paid salaries by the AEs after due tax deductions, and had offered the income to tax. The Revenue had not brought on record material to substantiate its claim that the assessee rendered managerial/technical services to the Indian AEs through the expatriates. The payments were considered pure reimbursement of salary costs, not FTS, as they were taxable as salary in the hands of the expatriate employees. The expats worked under the direct control and supervision of the Indian AEs, who were the real and economic employers. Consequently, the addition made on account of cross-charge by the assessee from its Indian AEs was deleted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on this ground. Grounds 11 and 12 (interest under section 234B and penalty under section 270A) were considered consequential.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements and digital evidence not properly placed on record or provided to the assessee. The AO failed to comply with the guidelines for handling digital evidence.

The Tribunal held that for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must establish concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Since no additions were made to the returned income, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition solely based on information from the Insight Portal without conducting independent verification, such as obtaining bank statements. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee provided bank statements showing maturity of existing FDRs and renewal of new FDRs from these matured funds. Furthermore, the assessee submitted assessment orders for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, where similar additions were deleted after verifying that funds were received from UAE bank accounts. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue failed to controvert the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings or present contrary material to show that the term deposits were made during the year under appeal from fresh funds, rather than rollovers. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, as no addition could be made under Section 69 when no fresh funds were invested. All grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was mechanical and failed to consider the business dynamics and receipt of funds from existing shareholders. It also ruled that advertisement expenses incurred for marketing commercial space are deductible even if the occupancy certificate was obtained later, as long as rental income is offered as business income.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was mechanical and failed to consider the business dynamics and receipt of funds from existing shareholders. It also ruled that advertisement expenses incurred for marketing commercial space are deductible even if the occupancy certificate was obtained later, as long as rental income is offered as business income.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was mechanical and failed to consider the business dynamics and receipt of funds from existing shareholders. It also ruled that advertisement expenses incurred for marketing commercial space are deductible even if the occupancy certificate was obtained later, as long as rental income is offered as business income.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was mechanical and failed to consider the business dynamics and receipt of funds from existing shareholders. It also ruled that advertisement expenses incurred for marketing commercial space are deductible even if the occupancy certificate was obtained later, as long as rental income is offered as business income.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were sufficiently explained by the assessee's business activities and prior cash accumulations. It also found that the agricultural land sold was indeed outside the municipal limits, making the capital gains exempt. The addition on account of business income was also deleted as the credits were explained.