ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

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 found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including audited accounts, GST returns, invoices, and bank statements, to prove the genuineness of the sales transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were not permissible as the date of handing over of the seized material to the AO occurred after April 1, 2021, making the notice invalid as per Section 153C(3). Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 143(1) were vitiated due to non-adherence to the proviso of Section 143(1A). The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the revised Form 10B and grant the benefit as due, and also to consider the rectification application to correctly work out the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 143(1) were vitiated due to non-adherence to the proviso of Section 143(1A). The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the revised Form 10B and grant the benefit as due, and also to consider the rectification application to correctly work out the assessee's income.

The Tribunal found that some personal element is inherent in watch and ward expenses. Unless there's concrete evidence of no threat perception, an increase in expenditure alone doesn't justify disallowing it as having a personal nature.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, meant that it was deemed to have never existed in the statute. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the AO and the reference made to the TPO were invalid and bad in law, making the consequential orders unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were not permissible as the date of handing over of the seized material to the AO occurred after April 1, 2021, making the notice invalid as per Section 153C(3). Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were not permissible as the date of handing over of the seized material to the AO occurred after April 1, 2021, making the notice invalid as per Section 153C(3). Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient to condone it and admit the appeal. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not respond to several notices for hearing. Considering this a facts-based case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves a chance to present her evidence before the authorities below. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the AO to allow the assessee to file all available evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be sustained as the underlying quantum assessment has been remanded. However, liberty was granted to the Assessing Officer to reinitiate penalty proceedings after the fresh assessment is completed.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot survive if the quantum addition has been deleted, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills. Additionally, the penalty was found to be barred by limitation as it was calculated from the wrong date.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present facts before the Ld. CIT(E). The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide reasons for the delay, the CIT(A) should have granted an opportunity to explain. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, thus quashing the assessment orders. It also held that the change in revenue recognition method was not permissible without cogent reasons and that additions for unaccounted receipts and payments amounted to double addition.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, thus quashing the assessment orders. It also held that the change in revenue recognition method was not permissible without cogent reasons and that additions for unaccounted receipts and payments amounted to double addition.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, thus quashing the assessment orders. It also held that the change in revenue recognition method was not permissible without cogent reasons and that additions for unaccounted receipts and payments amounted to double addition.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind, thus quashing the assessment orders. It also held that the change in revenue recognition method was not permissible without cogent reasons and that additions for unaccounted receipts and payments amounted to double addition.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal on a technicality. Given that the assessment order had no additions and the tax liability was minimal after TDS, the penalty was not justified.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated and finalized against a company that was non-existent, having been struck off by the ROC before the assessment order was passed, were vitiated by jurisdictional error. The assessment order was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated and finalized against a company that was non-existent, having been struck off by the ROC before the assessment order was passed, were vitiated by jurisdictional error. The assessment order was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated and finalized against a company that was non-existent, having been struck off by the ROC before the assessment order was passed, were vitiated by jurisdictional error. The assessment order was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal found that a proper and detailed inquiry was required to ascertain if the bank account was opened using forged documents. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after conducting a detailed inquiry and providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was illegal and void-ab-initio as the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued. The AO was aware of the assessee's return and it was essential to issue the notice to sustain additions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed two appeals and had already obtained the relief sought in a co-ordinate bench's order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10E before the due date under Section 139(1) is directory, not mandatory, for substantial relief. Therefore, the disallowance of relief under Section 89 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's point of view was not considered due to lack of notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the appeals back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file all necessary submissions and documentary evidence.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a decision on merits. The assessee was directed to file all necessary submissions and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications at the registration stage solely based on generating surplus income or charging high fees. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for granting registration after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications at the registration stage based on the grounds cited. The assessee's activities of providing education are considered charitable.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were not unexplained as they could be attributed to the assessee's prior cash withdrawals. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.

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 CIT(A)'s finding that the contributions qualified as anonymous donations was factually incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the actions of the AO and CIT(A) in treating the voluntary and corpus donations as anonymous.

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 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 satisfaction note recorded by the AO of the non-searched person was invalid. The AO had not recorded that the seized material found during the course of the search had a "bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee," as statutorily mandated by Section 153C of the Act. The Tribunal applied the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO, which emphasized that the AO must form the requisite satisfaction that the material has a bearing on the determination of the total income of the other person before initiating proceedings under Section 153C. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the notice under Section 153C and the consequent assessment order were not sustainable in law. The Tribunal quashed the order under Section 153C for the assessment year under consideration. The appeals were allowed on this basis, and the other grounds were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without granting adequate opportunity. Therefore, 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 condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the department sending communications to an obsolete email address. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the department sending communications to an obsolete email address. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the department sending communications to an obsolete email address. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the 7-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the department sending communications to an obsolete email address. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued after the period prescribed by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable.

The tribunal upheld the AO's determination of Long Term Capital Gains, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to rebut the calculation of the cost of acquisition or establish eligibility for exemption u/s 54F. Given the assessee's continuous non-compliance and lack of participation in the proceedings, the tribunal affirmed the validity of the ex-parte assessment and the initiation of proceedings u/s 148.