ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) for a limited period. For the interest paid to Unitech Limited, the Tribunal followed judicial precedents stating that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise if expenses are not claimed in the Profit & Loss account.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) for a limited period. For the interest paid to Unitech Limited, the Tribunal followed judicial precedents stating that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise if expenses are not claimed in the Profit & Loss account.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) for a limited period. For the interest paid to Unitech Limited, the Tribunal followed judicial precedents stating that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise if expenses are not claimed in the Profit & Loss account.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from an authority not competent to grant it under the amended Section 151, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D cannot be initiated in the absence of any pending assessment proceedings or a regular assessment order being passed. Therefore, the penalty initiated was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D cannot be initiated in the absence of any pending assessment proceedings or a regular assessment order being passed. Therefore, the penalty initiated was unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technical ground without addressing the merits of the assessee's claim regarding commission paid to foreign entities. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination, directing the AO to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, described as 'dumb documents', lacked corroborative evidence to establish actual sales outside the books. The Tribunal found that retractions of statements by employees and directors, along with the absence of other supporting evidence like excess stock or unexplained investments, weakened the additions made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, described as 'dumb documents', lacked corroborative evidence to establish actual sales outside the books. The Tribunal found that retractions of statements by employees and directors, along with the absence of other supporting evidence like excess stock or unexplained investments, weakened the additions made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, described as 'dumb documents', lacked corroborative evidence to establish actual sales outside the books. The Tribunal found that retractions of statements by employees and directors, along with the absence of other supporting evidence like excess stock or unexplained investments, weakened the additions made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, described as 'dumb documents', lacked corroborative evidence to establish actual sales outside the books. The Tribunal found that retractions of statements by employees and directors, along with the absence of other supporting evidence like excess stock or unexplained investments, weakened the additions made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the seized documents, described as 'dumb documents', lacked corroborative evidence to establish actual sales outside the books. The Tribunal found that retractions of statements by employees and directors, along with the absence of other supporting evidence like excess stock or unexplained investments, weakened the additions made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee attempted to explain the cash deposits from sales, there was some failure to explain the entire amount. Therefore, a lump-sum addition of Rs. 1.68 lakh was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had 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 held that the disallowance for delayed payment of PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) made through rectification proceedings is valid, relying on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions. The addition was affirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's absence. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO were not validly issued as they lacked the AO's signature, name, and seal, as required by Section 282A of the Act and Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the notice for reassessment was illegal and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on an unjustified extrapolation of figures from the excel sheet. The addition was sustained only to the extent of the actual figure mentioned in the excel sheet.

The Tribunal held that the donations were not genuine, as the political party's bank accounts were used by accommodation entry providers to launder money and return cash to the donors. Therefore, the deduction was rightly disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was acting in trust as a facilitator between the builder and allottees, and the agreement explicitly stated that the society would only recover its expenditure on land and statutory fees. The Tribunal found no specific violations and quashed the cancellation of registration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the primary issue concerning the Virtual Service Permanent Establishment (VSPE). It noted that the issue was squarely covered by a coordinate bench's order in the assessee's own case for AY 2022-23, which in turn followed the jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Clifford Chance Pte. Ltd. The High Court had held that Article 5(6)(a) of the India-Singapore DTAA (pari materia with Article 5(2)(k) of the India-UK DTAA regarding service PE) contemplates rendition of services by employees physically present within the country. The Court emphasized strict treaty interpretation and stated that concepts not expressly provided for, like VSPE, cannot be artificially read into the DTAA. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the theory of VSPE cannot be accepted unless the DTAA provides for it, and since the India-UK DTAA makes no provision for VSPE, the fiction of VSPE cannot be read into its provisions. Consequently, grounds of appeal 2.1 to 2.4 were allowed. As the assessee succeeded on the primary issue, the grounds challenging the attribution of profits (grounds 2.5 and 2.6) became academic and were thus disposed of accordingly.

The Tribunal held that sustaining a penalty order under Section 270A without first adjudicating the underlying quantum appeal is not legally sustainable. The penalty's basis is intrinsically linked to the quantum of income in dispute.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on alleged bogus purchases, and no addition was made on that specific issue, the AO could not make an addition on a different issue (commission) beyond the recorded reasons. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income, no disallowance can be made under Section 14A. Furthermore, the amendment to Section 14A, making disallowance compulsory, is prospective and applicable from AY 2022-23 onwards.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained the subsequent approval under Section 80G. Therefore, the appeal filed against the earlier rejection order had become infructuous.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's computation regarding Section 115BBE, referencing a High Court judgment that clarified its applicability from April 1, 2017. The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient tax effect as per CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact limb of Section 270A(9) under which the penalty was invoked. Consequently, the penalty at the enhanced rate could not be sustained.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence and did not properly adjudicate specific grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be given an adequate opportunity of being heard before any decision is taken. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have provided the assessee a chance to justify the delay.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) for a limited period. For the interest paid to Unitech Limited, the Tribunal followed judicial precedents stating that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise if expenses are not claimed in the Profit & Loss account.

The Tribunal noted that the orders below were largely ex parte and facts were not properly examined. Considering the assessee's claim of identity fraud, the matter was set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to identify and communicate the specific circumstance or incidence under Section 270A (either under-reporting or mis-reporting) before imposing the penalty rendered the proceedings invalid. The penalty was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that for charitable trusts where members' shares are not determinate or unknown, Section 167B (which prescribes MMR) is not applicable. Following its own prior decisions and CBDT circulars, the Tribunal directed that tax should be computed at normal slab rates.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was illegal because the reassessment proceedings were initiated for one transaction (L&T) but the additions were made on entirely different grounds (cash credit and commission) without considering the original reason for reopening. Therefore, the assessment order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found the ex-parte quantum assessment order was not on merits and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh. The penalty appeal was also set aside for fresh disposal, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal found the ex-parte quantum assessment order was not on merits and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The penalty appeal was also set aside for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for violating the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties imposed were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for violating the provisions of Sections 269SS and 269T. Therefore, the penalties imposed were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the dissolution clause alone was not sufficient grounds for rejection and that the CIT(E) had not properly examined the charitable nature of the assessee's activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the dissolution clause alone was not sufficient grounds for rejection and that the CIT(E) had not properly examined the charitable nature of the assessee's activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of the loan along with interest through banking channels, supported by documentary evidence, demonstrates the genuineness of the transaction. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the repayment of the loan along with interest through banking channels, supported by documentary evidence, demonstrates the genuineness of the transaction. The addition under Section 69C was also deleted as the primary transaction was found to be genuine.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 10B is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Therefore, denying exemption under Section 11 solely on account of delayed filing of Form 10B was not justified.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is a statutory allowance and cannot be denied due to a procedural omission like non-filing of Schedule DPM, especially when the claim was substantiated in Schedule BP and rectified. The rejection of rectification applications was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to record satisfaction that borrowed funds were used for exempt income-yielding investments. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's investments were covered by sufficient own capital and reserves, and followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior year.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable as no cash consideration was received for the shares. It also directed a partial disallowance for commission paid to directors and restored the issue of provision for expenses for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable as no cash consideration was received for the shares. It also directed a partial disallowance for commission paid to directors and restored the issue of provision for expenses for factual verification.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already declared profit on these unrecorded purchases in an updated return and admitted to repaying the cash to the intermediaries in his statement, a further addition under Section 56 was not justified. The Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already declared profit on these unrecorded purchases in an updated return and admitted to repaying the cash to the intermediaries in his statement, a further addition under Section 56 was not justified. The Tribunal deleted the addition.