ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order and wrongly rejected the assessee's request for additional evidence. The assessment was completed without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order and failed to consider the assessee's plea for additional evidence and COVID-19 related hardships. The assessment order was passed without an effective opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the enhanced compensation for agricultural land and is exempt from tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, following Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the AO of the non-searched person must independently record satisfaction that the seized material has a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. Since this was not done, the proceedings under Section 153C were initiated without proper jurisdiction.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the additional income. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the case squarely fell within Section 271AAB(1)(b) of the Act, upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued by an AO who lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of closing stock was based on an incorrect arithmetic movement rather than script-wise movement. It also found that since the assessee earned no exempt income, Section 14A was not applicable.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee issued a receipt for cash against a cheque, and the cheque number matched the sale deed, the exact nature of the transaction and the reason for cash receipt remained unanswered. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the alleged escaped income did not meet the threshold for invoking Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the alleged escaped income did not meet the threshold for invoking Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient information to the CIT(Exemptions) to establish the charitable nature of its activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient information to the CIT(Exemptions) to establish the charitable nature of its activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time period, making it barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's submission of reasonable cause. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering additional evidence and providing effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of notional interest on receivables is not justified, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 6,79,589/- on this account.

The tribunal heard the parties and perused the records. As the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal, the application was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT held that the assessee had demonstrated 'sufficient cause' for the four-month delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had pursued a rectification under Section 154 of the Act before approaching the first appellate authority. Citing pronouncements from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Others vs Gobardhan Sao and Others, the Tribunal emphasized that acceptance of explanations for delay should be the rule and refusal an exception, especially when no negligence or want of bona fide can be imputed to the party. A pedantic and hyper-technical view should not be adopted, and the expression 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed to subserve the ends of justice. Consequently, the delay of four months was condoned. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present submissions. The issue of disallowance under Section 80P(2)(d) and exemption on collections from members was expressly left undecided by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹10,66,400 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that the assessment was reopened based on information from the Insight Portal, which originated from a search and seizure operation on Elan Group. While the assessee did not dispute the purchase of a shop from Elan Ltd., they denied making a cash payment of ₹10,66,400. The AO made the addition based on estimations derived from documents seized during the search on Elan Group. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not refer to any incriminating material found and seized that specifically pertained to the assessee. The Tribunal's reasoning was that no addition can be made on estimations based on documents seized in the case of a third party, especially in the absence of any incriminating material relating to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for certain issues and remanded them back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' orders or dismissed the grounds.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹2,37,235/- made by the Assessing Officer, treating the entire sale consideration as unexplained credit under Section 68, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the AO's assessment order lacked specific findings linking the assessee or their broker to price rigging or circular trading of shares, relying only on a generic explanation of 'penny stock'. The CIT(A) had endorsed the AO's findings without examining the transaction. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of determining the 'capital gain' on the sale of shares after allowing the benefit of the cost of acquisition, in accordance with law. The Tribunal did not decide the issue of whether the shares were indeed 'penny stock' or if the capital gain was artificial.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the appeal itself on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay, as seen in cases like Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others. However, it emphasized that this liberal approach is applicable only when there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the applicant and the cause shown is bona fide. The Tribunal found that while the illness and death of the assessee's mother explained a part of the delay, a significant period of over 300 days remained unexplained. Citing N. Balkrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, the Tribunal stated that the acceptability of the explanation is the criterion, not just the length of the delay. The Tribunal further referred to Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh, highlighting that a valuable right accrues to the other party due to the failure to explain delay, and taking away that right due to negligence or inaction would be unreasonable. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's application lacked sufficient cause, demonstrating negligence and inaction, and therefore, the delay could not be condoned.

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the addition of ₹10,98,000 under Section 69A, the Tribunal accepted cash deposits of ₹1,40,000 from salary income and ₹3,00,000 from cash gifts received from the grandfather, Shri Jai Prakash Jain, for parity with the decision in Pranay Jain's case and based on confirmations provided. The remaining addition of ₹6,58,000 was confirmed. The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE of the Act, as per the Madras High Court's decision in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, comes into effect from April 1, 2017, making the un-amended provisions applicable to the impugned assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, the ground challenging the invocation of Section 115BBE was implicitly accepted in favor of the assessee for the assessment year in question, though the operative part of the order focuses on the Section 69A addition.

The Tribunal held that the entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be added back when sales and closing stock have been accepted by the AO. The reasoning is that purchases are required for sales, and the possibility of procuring goods from the grey market and obtaining bogus bills to match purchases cannot be ruled out. Following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in PC/T vs. Mohd. Haji Adam & Co., the addition for bogus purchases is restricted to the Gross Profit (GP) rate declared by the assessee on genuine purchases. The assessee declared a GP rate of 6.76%, and the addition was restricted to 7% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹39,35,137/-. Regarding the addition of ₹78,703/- under Section 69C for alleged commission, the Tribunal held that it was made on surmises and conjectures without corroborative material and directed its deletion. Ground No. 6 of the appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that additions cannot be made based on extrapolation without supporting material evidence. The seized documents and chats did not pertain to the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable only when the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the source of expenditure. In this case, the expenditure was reflected in the assessee's books, payments were made through banking channels, and the assessee had sufficient reserves. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable only when the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the source of expenditure. In this case, the expenditure was reflected in the assessee's books, payments were made through banking channels, and the assessee had sufficient reserves. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is applicable only when the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the source of expenditure. In this case, the expenditure was reflected in the assessee's books, payments were made through banking channels, and the assessee had sufficient reserves. Therefore, the addition under Section 69C was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was cryptic, lacked application of mind, and did not specify year-wise income or relate the seized documents to the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings and consequent assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was cryptic, lacked application of mind, and did not specify year-wise income or relate the seized documents to the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings and consequent assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT should not have been influenced by search findings in the registration proceedings. Issues raised by the PCIT should be dealt with during assessment, not in registration proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT should not have been influenced by search findings in the registration proceedings. Issues raised by the PCIT should be dealt with during assessment, not in registration proceedings.

The Tribunal held that Section 194-IA is not applicable as no immovable property was acquired, thus upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). It also held that the excess payment constituted goodwill for acquiring a running business and not unexplained expenditure, confirming the deletion of addition under Section 69C.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfied the conditions for obtaining a valuation report from a competent person using a prescribed method (DCF). The AO cannot substitute the valuation report with another method (NAV) if the assessee's report is based on a prescribed method and obtained from a competent person.

The Tribunal held that disallowances made under Section 143(1)(a) for employees' PF/ESI contributions paid before the due date were unsustainable. This was based on previous coordinate bench decisions where such adjustments were considered outside the scope of summary proceedings during periods of legal debate.

The Tribunal held that Section 194-IA is not applicable as no immovable property was acquired, thus upholding the deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). It also held that the excess payment constituted goodwill for acquiring a running business and not unexplained expenditure, confirming the deletion of addition under Section 69C.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was cryptic, lacked application of mind, and did not specify year-wise income or relate the seized documents to the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings and consequent assessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also admitted the additional grounds of appeal as they were purely legal. The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act.

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and an incorrect email communication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and an incorrect email communication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and an incorrect email communication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and an incorrect email communication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to an ex-parte order by the CIT(A) and an incorrect email communication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in rejecting the renewal application based on a cancelled registration that had already been restored by the ITAT. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely based on religious objectives and expenditure exceeding 5%, especially when the trust had already obtained approval under Section 12AB. The Tribunal noted that such issues fall within the purview of assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a dissolution clause is not a mandatory condition for granting registration under Section 12AB. Following jurisdictional precedents, the Tribunal found the rejection to be unjustified.

The Tribunal acknowledged that ex-parte orders were passed by both lower authorities. To ensure natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a proper opportunity before rejecting the initial applications and that conditional registration under Section 12AB is not permissible. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration without conditions and remitted the 80G approval matter back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a proper opportunity before rejecting the initial applications and that conditional registration under Section 12AB is not permissible. The Tribunal directed the grant of registration without conditions and remitted the 80G approval matter back to the CIT(E).

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for certain issues and remanded them back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' orders or dismissed the grounds.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for certain issues and remanded them back to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication. For other issues, the Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' orders or dismissed the grounds.