ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and had passed ex parte orders without proper fact-finding. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, condoning the delay for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and had passed ex parte orders without proper fact-finding. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, condoning the delay for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the matter afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment solely on the basis of an audit objection, without any fresh tangible material, amounts to a mere change of opinion and is therefore invalid. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking, cryptic order passed ex-parte in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and did not conduct proper inquiry.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the need for substantive justice over technical considerations. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing the appellant an opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities relied heavily on investigation reports without independent enquiry. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities relied heavily on investigation reports without independent enquiry. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C must clearly state that the seized material has a 'bearing' on the determination of the assessee's total income. Since this was not explicitly mentioned, the assessments were quashed.

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

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under section 153C must clearly state that the seized material has a 'bearing' on the determination of the assessee's total income. Since this was not explicitly mentioned, the assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that no incriminating material was found during the search that implicated the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal agreed that the reopening was based on alleged cash payments which were not substantiated in the assessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that no incriminating material was found during the search that implicated the assessee for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal agreed that the reopening was based on alleged cash payments which were not substantiated in the assessment order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had drawn unilateral conclusions, leading to an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide opportunities of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and to pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal found that the issues were not discussed on merit and required factual verification. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that once an assessment is selected for scrutiny, the intimation order under section 143(1)(a) merges with the scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the original appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submission that the issues were not discussed on merit. The CIT(A) failed to discuss the appellant's submissions and provide reasons for the decision as required by Section 250(6).

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that repayment of loans from entities found to be providing accommodation entries does not confer legitimacy. Following precedent, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the repayment as proof of genuineness.

The Tribunal held that courts should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delays to ensure disposal on merits. In the interest of justice, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was bad in law because it failed to specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated under. This lack of specificity rendered the foundation for imposing the penalty legally missing.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation. Following judicial precedents, the limitation period was considered to have started from the date of the order under Section 127 of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were bad in law because the satisfaction note was recorded after April 1, 2021, which is the cut-off date for applying the amended provisions of Section 153C. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were bad in law because the satisfaction note was recorded after April 1, 2021, which is the cut-off date for applying the amended provisions of Section 153C. Therefore, the assessment orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to deem the assessment orders illegal, following a jurisdictional High Court judgment, despite the pendency of an SLP against it.

The ITAT decided to admit additional evidence from the assessee and remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The tribunal emphasized the need for a fair hearing and proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was time-barred as it was issued after the limitation period. Consequently, the assessment order was considered non est and unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission to offer profit attribution at 2.5% to avoid further litigation. This was considered a reasonable compromise by the Tribunal. Other grounds of appeal were deemed consequential.

The Tribunal held that once AMP expenses were included in the benchmarking of international transactions under TNMM and found to be at Arm's Length Price (ALP), no separate benchmarking of AMP expenses was required. The issue of interest on receivables was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that if the excise duty was an exemption, it would not be taxable as income. However, if it was a refund, it would be taxable. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of the receipt.

The Tribunal held that if the excise duty was an exemption, it would not be taxable as income. However, if it was a refund, it would be taxable. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the nature of the receipt.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued to a deceased person is void ab initio and all consequent proceedings, including the reassessment order, are null and void. The court relied on High Court judgments stating that a notice under Section 148 must be issued to a correct person, not a dead one.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the pendency of an SLP against a jurisdictional High Court's judgment has no consequence. Therefore, the Revenue's grounds of appeal were devoid of merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps with the new virtual hearing mechanism. It was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were barred by limitation. This was based on the date of the Section 127 order, which determined the start of the limitation period for assessment.