ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in rejecting the assessee's valuation report without demonstrating any defect and in making additions without a proper show-cause notice. The CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investor companies. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal partially allowed appeals concerning disallowance of expenses, sustaining 10% of the addition. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalties, holding that the notices were defective for failing to specify the exact limb of the relevant penalty sections.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was pending before the CIT(A) and that the orders of the authorities below were passed in a one-sided manner. It was deemed appropriate to hear the quantum and penalty matters together.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalized for a clerical error made by their accountant. The tax liability should be computed as per the new tax regime, as intended by the assessee.

The Tribunal partially allowed appeals concerning disallowance of expenses, sustaining 10% of the addition. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalties, holding that the notices were defective for failing to specify the exact limb of the relevant penalty sections.

The Tribunal held that the commencement date for computing the ten assessment years under Section 153C is the date of receipt of materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Since the satisfaction was recorded on 21.12.2022, the relevant assessment year is 2023-24, making earlier years time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the commencement date for computing the ten assessment years under Section 153C is the date of receipt of materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Since the satisfaction was recorded on 21.12.2022, the relevant assessment year is 2023-24, making earlier years time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the commencement date for computing the ten assessment years under Section 153C is the date of receipt of materials by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person. Since the satisfaction was recorded on 21.12.2022, the relevant assessment year is 2023-24, making earlier years time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were based on incorrect facts as the bank account was disclosed in the Form 3CD attached to the assessee's return. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal partially allowed appeals concerning disallowance of expenses, sustaining 10% of the addition. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalties, holding that the notices were defective for failing to specify the exact limb of the relevant penalty sections.

The Tribunal held that the interest awarded, once it becomes part of a court decree, assumes the character of a judgment debt and is not taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the India-US DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the ten-year block period for assessment under Section 153C is to be computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note was recorded or documents were handed over to the jurisdictional AO. Therefore, AY 2010-11 was outside this period.

The CIT(A) found that the assessee was not the sole organizer of the cash committees but was a joint organizer with another individual. Consequently, the addition was reduced and apportioned equally between the two organizers.

The Tribunal partially allowed appeals concerning disallowance of expenses, sustaining 10% of the addition. For penalty appeals, the Tribunal quashed the penalties, holding that the notices were defective for failing to specify the exact limb of the relevant penalty sections.

The CIT(A) found that the assessee was not the sole organizer of the cash committees but was a joint organizer with another individual. Consequently, the addition was reduced and apportioned equally between the two organizers.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal concerns the AO's confirmation of not allowing the 10% Safe Harbor Limit.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessees an opportunity of being heard and to pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all evidence on record.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of outstanding indirect taxes under Section 43B, holding that since the amounts were collected from customers, they are deemed income. The issue of commission expenses was set aside to the AO for reconciliation. The disallowance of cash expenses under Section 40A(3) was remanded to the AO for verification of individual payment amounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable and should have been under section 148. It also deleted certain additions for lack of substantiation and reversed additions treating sale of 'mitti' as business income. Some additions were partly allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing genuine reasons and the principle of natural justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the bona fide reasons of the assessee's medical condition. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove her case at her own risk.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the bona fide reasons of the assessee's medical condition. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantial justice. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the NCLT order, approving the scheme of compromise and arrangement, overrides the Income Tax Act provisions due to Section 238 of the IBC Code. Therefore, the CIT(A) was precluded from adjudicating the penalty appeal.

The Tribunal held that MFN clauses are not self-executing and require a specific notification under Section 90(1) of the Income Tax Act to be effective domestically. The existing notification for the India-Netherlands DTAA only reduced the tax rate to 10% and did not import the 'Nil' rate from the India-USA DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was invalid because it was based on a factual error regarding the filing of the return and because the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued. The order passed by the CIT(A) quashing the reassessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact limb under Section 270A(9) of the Act that constituted misreporting of income. Therefore, the penalty was not validly imposed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form No. 67, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Real Time Data Services (P.) Ltd. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the foreign tax credit after verification, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable and should have been under section 148. It also deleted certain additions for lack of substantiation and reversed additions treating sale of 'mitti' as business income. Some additions were partly allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable and should have been under section 148. It also deleted certain additions for lack of substantiation and reversed additions treating sale of 'mitti' as business income. Some additions were partly allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and before the CIT(A) due to genuine reasons, including the Covid pandemic. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the issues.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable and should have been under section 148. It also deleted certain additions for lack of substantiation and reversed additions treating sale of 'mitti' as business income. Some additions were partly allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal due to delay. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable in law and should have been under Section 148. It also deleted certain additions due to lack of substantiation and reversed the classification of certain receipts as business income.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable and should have been under section 148. It also deleted certain additions for lack of substantiation and reversed additions treating sale of 'mitti' as business income. Some additions were partly allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable and should have been under section 148. It also deleted certain additions for lack of substantiation and reversed additions treating sale of 'mitti' as business income. Some additions were partly allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed under section 143(3) after a search action was not sustainable and should have been under section 148. It also deleted certain additions for lack of substantiation and reversed additions treating sale of 'mitti' as business income. Some additions were partly allowed or remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the rejection of books of account under Section 145(3) was justified due to systemic irregularities in purchases. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s reduction of the estimated profit rate to 1% to be reasonable and fair.

The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay in filing the appeal, as well as the penalty appeal, and to pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an AO without jurisdiction, as the assessee had consistently provided a Delhi address for filing returns. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceeding was quashed.

The Tribunal remitted the quantum appeal back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay in filing the appeal, as well as the penalty appeal, and to pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of the confirmed interest addition back to the AO for fresh verification. This was to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard and to decide the matter afresh.

The Tribunal accepted Ground No. 13, stating that the delay in depositing employee contributions to Provident Fund and Employee State Insurance was due to bank holidays and not intentional. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's disallowance of deduction under Section 36 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since additions were deleted in the hands of the shareholders for the same transactions, the addition in the hands of the assessee also lacked legal basis. Consequently, the assessee's grounds were allowed, and the revenue's grounds were dismissed.