ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted after April 1, 2021, the AO should have initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and obtained prior approval under Section 148B. The assessment completed under Section 143(3) without following these mandatory procedures was deemed void ab initio.

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 found the ex-parte orders were based on non-compliance. Satisfied with the assessee's justification for past non-compliance, the Tribunal decided to remit the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted after April 1, 2021, the AO should have initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and obtained prior approval under Section 148B. The assessment completed under Section 143(3) without following these mandatory procedures was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted after April 1, 2021, the AO should have initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and obtained prior approval under Section 148B. The assessment completed under Section 143(3) without following these mandatory procedures was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the impugned reopening was initiated based on a notice under section 148 dated 13.04.2021, and the income sought to be assessed was less than Rs. 50 lacs. Following the Bombay High Court ruling in Naresh Balchandrarao Shinde v. ITO, the reopening did not satisfy the statutory criteria of Rs. 50 lacs and was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted after April 1, 2021, the AO should have initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and obtained prior approval under Section 148B. The assessment completed under Section 143(3) without following these mandatory procedures was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits, granting one final opportunity to the assessee.

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 since the search was conducted after April 1, 2021, the AO should have initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and obtained prior approval under Section 148B. The assessment completed under Section 143(3) without following these mandatory procedures was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that since the search was conducted after April 1, 2021, the AO should have initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 148 and obtained prior approval under Section 148B. The assessment completed under Section 143(3) without following these mandatory procedures was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the assessments were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 6-year block period from the deemed date of search. For assessment year 2016-17, proceedings under Section 153C were quashed as the deemed date of search fell after April 1, 2021, making Section 153C(3) inapplicable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the AO had not disputed the assessee's sales, purchases, or stock, and had not conducted a specific examination of the transactions. Therefore, the cash deposits were considered explained by the cash sales.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued after the period permitted by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the notice and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the assessments were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 6-year block period from the deemed date of search. For assessment year 2016-17, proceedings under Section 153C were quashed as the deemed date of search fell after April 1, 2021, making Section 153C(3) inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, rendering it a jurisdictional defect. This defect is not curable and makes the reassessment order void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the assessments were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 6-year block period from the deemed date of search. For assessment year 2016-17, proceedings under Section 153C were quashed as the deemed date of search fell after April 1, 2021, making Section 153C(3) inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and ledger accounts, to explain the source of funds and the business purpose of the transactions. Therefore, the returned advances could not be treated as income from undisclosed sources.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, stating that it applies only when exempt income is actually received. The appeals of both the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO was invalid as it did not explicitly state that the seized entries pertained to the assessee and had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding corporate guarantee commission, upholding the CIT(A)'s reduction to 1% based on previous ITAT decisions. For interest on loans, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing interest to be charged at LIBOR+200 bps, modifying the CIT(A)'s order of LIBOR only. The appeal regarding interest on receivables was dismissed, following a previous ITAT ruling.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of whether the nephew refunded the advances or adjusted them against goods supplied. If confirmed, no addition should be made. The Tribunal also deleted the addition on account of cash deposits, finding it to be a double addition as cash sales were already accepted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided evidence, including a forensic report, proving the bank account was not opened by him. Therefore, the cash deposit could not be taxed in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the principle of mutuality applies as the society receives funds from its members for their mutual benefit and does not distribute profits. Therefore, the denial of the basic exemption limit and the application of the maximum marginal rate were incorrect.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenses are not international transactions and that the Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a valid method for benchmarking such expenses. Consequently, the adjustments made by the TPO and AO were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, stating that it applies only when exempt income is actually received. The appeals of both the Revenue and the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued after 31.03.2022. Consequently, the reassessment order and consequent demands were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeals was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE was justified. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the unsecured loans from the disputed parties.

The Tribunal held that the donation was not genuine as the recipient political party was found to be a paper entity facilitating bogus claims. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80GGC was rightly disallowed.

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 upheld the disallowance of the deduction. It noted that a coordinate bench had previously ruled on similar facts that donations to this political party were bogus and intended to defraud taxpayers.

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 notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 29.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 was barred by limitation. Consequently, the assessment order and consequent demands were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction were established. The Tribunal also noted that interest was not debited as an expenditure in the profit and loss account.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction were established. The Tribunal also noted that interest was not debited as an expenditure in the profit and loss account.

The Tribunal held that the Prescribed Authority erred by relying solely on the memorandum of association without examining the financials. It further noted that the society's actual expenditure did not show any religious activities, and its primary objectives were charitable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the comparables selected by the TPO were functionally different and not comparable due to differing risks and activities. The Tribunal agreed that RPM was the most appropriate method and that the assessee's approach of using its AE as the tested party was justified given the least complex environment.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded on February 14, 2022, which is after April 1, 2021, renders the proceedings under Section 153C invalid. Therefore, the notice and consequent assessment are quashed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded on February 14, 2022, which is after April 1, 2021, renders the proceedings under Section 153C invalid. Therefore, the notice and consequent assessment are 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 notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequent assessment order passed under Section 153C are vitiated in law and require to be quashed. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) was vague, generic, and failed to establish a nexus between the material found during the search of Shri Pranjil Batra and the assessee. Specifically, the satisfaction note did not identify the specific documents, the assessment years to which they pertained, or demonstrate how they related to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction note was recorded without proper application of mind and relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal in cases such as Renu Singh (ITA No. 2806/Del/2024) and Harish Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 5652/Del/2024), which had quashed similar assessments based on non-descript and cryptic satisfaction notes. The Tribunal concluded that a mechanical reproduction of allegations without independent application of mind cannot confer valid jurisdiction under Section 153C. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside. Grounds of appeal nos. 2 and 4 were allowed, and other grounds were deemed consequential.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in applying a newly inserted clause retrospectively to a registration granted prior to its insertion. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's long-standing registration and continuous filing of returns.

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 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 satisfaction note recorded on February 14, 2022, which is after April 1, 2021, renders the proceedings under Section 153C invalid. Therefore, the notice and consequent assessment are quashed.

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 since the cash-in-hand of a group entity, M/s Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd., was accepted by the AO and not disputed, the cash found in the assessee's possession should be considered part of that explained cash. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were liable to be deleted.

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.