ITAT Delhi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C for AY 2010-11, issued on 29.06.2022, was beyond the 10-year block period prescribed by Sections 153A and 153C. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.

The CIT(A) deleted all the additions made by the AO, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the lenders and the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10B is directory, not mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of Section 11 exemption based on the late filing of Form 10B was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including loan agreements, bank statements, and the lender's financial records, to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the loan. The CIT(A) had rightly appreciated this evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of TDS on lease rent paid to GNOIDA, following previous decisions of the ITAT and the Delhi High Court. The additions made by the AO were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that while the cash deposits were not fully explained, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was just and proper, considering the assessee's prior cash withdrawals. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from Indian educational institutions and corporate customers aggregating to Rs. 1,31,31,59,555/- do not fall within the ambit of Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12(4) of the India-US DTAA. The Tribunal noted that the factual matrix for the current assessment year is identical to the preceding assessment years for which the Tribunal had consistently ruled in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in ITA No.2416/Del/2023, ITA No.3646/Del/2023, and ITA No.1958/Del/2025. The reasoning in those prior decisions, which was reiterated, was that the assessee acts as a mere facilitator providing access to online course content created by third-party universities and companies. The Tribunal found no evidence of technical services being rendered, emphasizing the absence of human intervention, which is a prerequisite for FTS as per Supreme Court rulings. The ratio is that providing access to online educational content, where the content is created by others and the platform acts as a facilitator without technical intervention, does not constitute FTS. The addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that justice had eluded the assessee due to the ex-parte order and the failure of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the AO's satisfaction note failed to demonstrate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by Section 153C. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO, the Tribunal held the satisfaction note to be invalid.

The Tribunal found that the AO's satisfaction note failed to demonstrate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by Section 153C. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO, the Tribunal held the satisfaction note to be invalid.

The Tribunal found that the AO's satisfaction note failed to demonstrate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by Section 153C. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO, the Tribunal held the satisfaction note to be invalid.

The Tribunal found that the AO's satisfaction note failed to demonstrate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by Section 153C. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO, the Tribunal held the satisfaction note to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal found that the AO's satisfaction note failed to demonstrate that the seized material had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income, as mandated by Section 153C. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Saksham Commodities Ltd. v. ITO, the Tribunal held the satisfaction note to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal acknowledged divergent judicial opinions on bogus purchases. It decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 3% of the bogus purchases, without setting a precedent.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not adequately explain the delay due to space limitations for submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal decided to make a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases/expenditure. This disallowance is not to be treated as a precedent, and the assessee's book entries are rejected to that extent.

The Tribunal held that the AO's conclusion of a PE was not substantiated by cogent evidence, relying solely on employee statements without documentary corroboration. The Tribunal found that the expatriate employees were working for the benefit of the Indian subsidiary and not for the assessee's own business in India.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without affording a fair opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, with an expectation that the assessee would present facts and be given a hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay before the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, with an expectation that the assessee would present facts and be given a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable in law because the penalty notices issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the corresponding limb(s) under Section 271AAB. The Revenue's contentions were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the related quantum additions had been deleted by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer, after the remand, verified and accepted the assessee's entire purchases claim, the disallowance made earlier was rendered infructuous. Consequently, the impugned disallowance was deleted in its entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal held that the order of the PCIT was not sustainable. The interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal found that the case was fact-based and required proper fact-finding at the lower levels, which had not been done due to the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire reopening process.

The Tribunal directed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to cover all alleged unexplained cash credits, bogus purchases, and advances, and directed assessment under normal provisions for Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's business and the lack of dispute regarding sales. Considering divergent judicial views on bogus purchases, a lumpsum disallowance of 1% of the disputed purchases was deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal directed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to cover all alleged unexplained cash credits, bogus purchases, and advances, and directed assessment under normal provisions for Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the reopening proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to obtain the necessary approval from the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act. This failure vitiated the entire reopening process.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was then restored to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Covid-19 pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was then restored to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, had been deleted by a coordinate bench in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Consequently, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the penalties under Section 271DA had no basis, as the underlying quantum additions had been deleted in earlier proceedings. Therefore, the penalties were deleted in their entirety.

The Tribunal held that the claim for annuity disallowance was factually incorrect as no such disallowance arose in the preceding year. The issue regarding section 143(1) adjustment was not adjudicated as a separate appeal was pending. The claim for exemption under section 10(46) was rejected as the entity had not been notified as required by the Act.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to assess the commission income component at 0.4%, referencing a similar assessment in the succeeding assessment year. The addition was to be recomputed accordingly.