ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without hearing the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer.

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 decided to disallow a lump sum amount of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance is not to be treated as a precedent.

The Tribunal held that for fees to be considered FTS under Article 12(4) of the India-China DTAA, the services must be rendered in the other contracting state (India). Since the services were rendered from China, they did not qualify as FTS taxable in India.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for jewellery, considering it within the prescribed limits for a married lady. The addition for gold bullion was also deleted based on the principle of telescoping with other undisclosed income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for jewellery, considering it within the prescribed limits for a married lady. The addition for gold bullion was also deleted based on the principle of telescoping with other undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit for payments made on behalf of the educational service organization. These payments were treated as receivables and not claimed as the assessee's own expenditure.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition made in the hands of M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. was deleted (and confirmed as time-barred), the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee would not survive. Therefore, the protective addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to fully substantiate the genuineness of purchases, the entire disallowance was not justified. The addition for income from other sources was deleted. The Tribunal confirmed bogus purchases to the extent of 10% of the total disputed amount.

For ITA No.6794/Del/2026 (AY 2014-15), the Tribunal admitted the additional ground of limitation, holding it to be a purely legal issue arising from facts on record, citing National Thermal Power Company Limited. The Tribunal found that the payment of EDC was made in FY 2013-14. The six-year limitation period under Section 201(3) expired on 31.03.2020. However, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 31.03.2021, which was one year after the expiry of the limitation period. Therefore, the order was quashed as barred by limitation. Consequently, the issue on merits regarding TDS on EDC charges became academic and was dismissed. For ITA No.6795/Del/2026 (AY 2015-16), the Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the issue of Section 201(1) but remanded the matter for interest under Section 201(1A). Relying on the decision in Deputy Gothwal Constructions (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act have been fulfilled. If fulfilled, the assessee cannot be saddled with any liability under Section 201(1)/201(1A).

For ITA No.6794/Del/2026 (AY 2014-15), the Tribunal admitted the additional ground of limitation, holding it to be a purely legal issue arising from facts on record, citing National Thermal Power Company Limited. The Tribunal found that the payment of EDC was made in FY 2013-14. The six-year limitation period under Section 201(3) expired on 31.03.2020. However, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 31.03.2021, which was one year after the expiry of the limitation period. Therefore, the order was quashed as barred by limitation. Consequently, the issue on merits regarding TDS on EDC charges became academic and was dismissed. For ITA No.6795/Del/2026 (AY 2015-16), the Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the issue of Section 201(1) but remanded the matter for interest under Section 201(1A). Relying on the decision in Deputy Gothwal Constructions (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act have been fulfilled. If fulfilled, the assessee cannot be saddled with any liability under Section 201(1)/201(1A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the commission rate to 0.5%, finding it to be in consonance with market rates and accepted practices. The Tribunal did not find it appropriate to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that opening balances brought forward from earlier years cannot be subjected to addition under Section 68 in the current year. The Assessing Officer made the addition based on information from the Investigation Wing without independent verification, and the assessee had discharged its onus.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the commission rate to 0.5%, finding it to be in consonance with market rates and accepted practices. The Tribunal did not find it appropriate to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for jewellery, considering it within the prescribed limits for a married lady. The addition for gold bullion was also deleted based on the principle of telescoping with other undisclosed income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for jewellery, considering it within the prescribed limits for a married lady. The addition for gold bullion was also deleted based on the principle of telescoping with other undisclosed income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for jewellery, considering it within the prescribed limits for a married lady. The addition for gold bullion was also deleted based on the principle of telescoping with other undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on surplus funds invested with cooperative banks and other entities is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This decision followed a catena of judgments by coordinate benches.

The Tribunal held that for fees to be considered FTS under Article 12(4) of the India-China DTAA, the services must be rendered in the other contracting state (India). Since the services were rendered from China, they did not qualify as FTS taxable in India.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities relied heavily on Shri Mukesh Banka's statement and considered only paid-up share capital, ignoring reserves and surpluses. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the existence of the lender companies and their creditworthiness beyond their paid-up capital.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities relied heavily on Shri Mukesh Banka's statement and considered only paid-up share capital, ignoring reserves and surpluses. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the existence of the lender companies and their creditworthiness beyond their paid-up capital.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities relied heavily on Shri Mukesh Banka's statement and considered only paid-up share capital, ignoring reserves and surpluses. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) failed to consider the existence of the lender companies and their creditworthiness beyond their paid-up capital.

The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search was after April 1, 2021, making Section 153C inapplicable as per its sub-section (3). Consequently, the notice under Section 153C and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the seized cash represented commission income earned from trading activities and could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A. It directed that the commission income be restricted to Rs. 2000 per crore of transaction, following a precedent from the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by including cash deposits made before the demonetization period and by rejecting the assessee's explanation for post-demonetization deposits without proper examination of evidence. The addition made by the AO was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The disallowance was made mechanically without proper satisfaction and in contravention of established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was invalid because it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271AAB under which the penalty was being initiated. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) overlooked a prior registration order under section 12A dated September 27, 2013, which was submitted by the applicant. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish critical primary records, rendering the declared trading results unverifiable. Therefore, the AO was justified in estimating the income, and the additions were confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the orders were passed ex parte and that the assessee was denied an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the orders were passed ex parte and that the assessee was denied an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal against the order under section 263 was not maintainable at this stage. However, due to a violation of natural justice concerning the opportunity for personal hearing, the issue of sundry creditors was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a ground of appeal had indeed remained un-adjudicated in the CIT(A)'s previous order. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s rejection of the rectification application was set aside.

The Tribunal found it prudent to set aside the issue of reconciliation between TDS credit in Form 26AS and the return to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide three effective opportunities for reconciliation.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to verify the assessee's claim that the cash component of salary was declared and that it was a case of double addition.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC's ex-parte order was not justified as it failed to decide the issue on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) overlooked a prior registration order under section 12A dated September 27, 2013, which was submitted by the applicant. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable in law because the additions made in the assessment order did not align with the reasons recorded for reopening. Therefore, the reopening itself was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, including the source of funds for the investors. The AO failed to make independent inquiries to controvert the evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the sales were accepted and the assessee's books of account were not rejected, only the profit element in the alleged bogus purchases should be added. The Tribunal estimated a profit of Rs. 4 lakhs on the Rs. 40 lakhs purchases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's cross-objection regarding the validity of the notice under section 143(2) was not maintainable, as per higher judicial precedents. However, it found that the CIT(A) had violated the AO's right to natural justice by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine documents submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Revenue, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment year 2011-12 was outside the scope of Section 153C due to being beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments regarding the reckoning of the limitation period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment year 2011-12 was outside the scope of Section 153C due to being beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments regarding the reckoning of the limitation period.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessment year 2011-12 was outside the scope of Section 153C due to being beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments regarding the reckoning of the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable due to the amended provisions of Section 153C(3) of the Act, which rendered such assessments non-est if the search date was after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable due to the amended provisions of Section 153C(3) of the Act, which rendered such assessments non-est if the search date was after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that a normal assessment under Section 143(3) cannot be framed after a search under Section 132 has been initiated if material relating to the assessee is found. Instead, proceedings must be conducted under the special provisions of Section 148. The Tribunal also dismissed several grounds of appeal raised by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable due to the amended provisions of Section 153C(3) of the Act, which rendered such assessments non-est if the search date was after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable due to the amended provisions of Section 153C(3) of the Act, which rendered such assessments non-est if the search date was after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.