ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

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 allowed depreciation on electrical installations at 15% and on UPS at 60%, following High Court precedents. It also allowed the deduction under Section 80IC by directing item-wise examination of expenses. The disallowance of interest on capital work in progress was deleted, and the Revenue's appeal on additional evidence was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on electrical installations at 15% and on UPS at 60%, following High Court precedents. It also allowed deduction under Section 80IC after examining expense allocation and deleted the disallowance of interest on capital work in progress, finding sufficient interest-free funds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the exclusion of four comparable companies, stating that their inclusion was illegal. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to apply his mind to the facts, confusing the entities M/s Divyadrishti Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Divyadrishti Traders Pvt. Ltd. The reasons for reopening were found to be insufficient and based on a wrong premise, making the consequential assessment order bad in law.

The Tribunal held that while CSR expenditure might not be deductible under Section 37(1), there is no bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G if the donation is made to an eligible institution. The ITAT followed its coordinate bench decisions on this matter.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must clearly specify the ground for penalty, either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, by striking off the inapplicable one. Failure to do so vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing at their own risk.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of justice due to potential communication gaps.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation on electrical installations at 15% and on UPS at 60%, following High Court precedents. It also allowed the deduction under Section 80IC by directing item-wise examination of expenses. The disallowance of interest on capital work in progress was deleted, and the Revenue's appeal on additional evidence was dismissed.

The Tribunal acknowledged divergent views on bogus purchases but, in the interest of justice, allowed a lumpsum disallowance of 4% on alleged bogus purchases. This disallowance was to cover any commission expenditure and was not to be treated as a precedent.

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

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted three effective opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee could not fully discharge its onus of proving the explanation for the cash deposits, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 15 lakhs would be just and proper. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be done under normal provisions as the section was effective from April 1, 2017.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening was issued after more than three years with the approval of the CIT, whereas the competent authority should have been the PCCIT/CCIT. Therefore, the notice was defective and the assessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that for a regular assessment under Section 143(3), there is no statutory provision requiring prior approval or discussion with a superior officer like the Additional Commissioner. Such involvement vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal held that for a regular assessment under Section 143(3), there is no statutory provision requiring prior approval or discussion with a superior officer like the Additional Commissioner. Such involvement vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal held that for a regular scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), there is no statutory requirement for the Assessing Officer to obtain prior approval or hold discussions with a superior officer. Such actions vitiate the assessment.

The Tribunal held that for a regular assessment under Section 143(3), there is no statutory provision requiring prior approval or discussion with a superior officer like the Additional Commissioner. Such involvement vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully reconcile the cash deposits with sales, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 20 lakhs would be just and proper. It also directed that the assessee be assessed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE, as the provision was effective from April 1, 2017.

The Tribunal held that for a regular assessment under Section 143(3), there is no statutory provision requiring prior approval or discussion with a superior officer like the Additional Commissioner. Such involvement vitiates the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as time-barred. The income in question, represented as unsecured loans, did not fall within the definition of 'asset' as contemplated by the relevant provisions for extended limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as time-barred. The income in question, represented as unsecured loans, did not fall within the definition of 'asset' as contemplated by the relevant provisions for extended limitation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as time-barred. The income in question was in the form of unsecured loans (accommodation entries), which did not qualify as 'assets' as defined for the purpose of extended limitation under the relevant provisions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance arose from a bona fide claim on a debatable issue, and the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued merely for verification or to conduct roving enquiries. The reasons for reopening must clearly indicate that income has escaped assessment, not just the desirability of further investigation. Since the reasons did not allege escapement of income, the notice was considered without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 28.07.2022 was indeed time-barred for AY 2015-16, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order based on this notice was also deemed not tenable.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount was a business receipt and therefore Section 68 was not applicable. It further ruled that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was prospective and not applicable to the financial year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were for a period of one year from 15.12.2011, thus not extending beyond AY 2013-14. For AY 2013-14, the matter was remitted to the AO for further examination of the assessee's claim regarding no transaction and the possibility of receiving interest from a proclaimed offender. For subsequent years, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were for a period of one year from 15.12.2011, thus not extending beyond AY 2013-14. For AY 2013-14, the matter was remitted to the AO for further examination of the assessee's claim regarding no transaction and the possibility of receiving interest from a proclaimed offender. For subsequent years, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were for a period of one year from 15.12.2011, thus not extending beyond AY 2013-14. For AY 2013-14, the matter was remitted to the AO for further examination of the assessee's claim regarding no transaction and the possibility of receiving interest from a proclaimed offender. For subsequent years, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were for a period of one year from 15.12.2011, thus not extending beyond AY 2013-14. For AY 2013-14, the matter was remitted to the AO for further examination of the assessee's claim regarding no transaction and the possibility of receiving interest from a proclaimed offender. For subsequent years, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in the Trust Deed is not a valid ground for rejecting an application for registration or renewal under Section 12AB. The CIT(E)'s order was quashed, and the registration was directed to be granted.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in the Trust Deed is not a valid ground for rejecting an application for registration or renewal under Section 12AB. The CIT(E)'s order was quashed, and the registration was directed to be granted.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and could furnish fresh evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and could furnish fresh evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the possibility of communication gaps, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the evidence filed by the assessee regarding the receipts and expenses was not adequately examined by the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying these evidences.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable. It relied on Supreme Court decisions affirming that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) for individuals and HUFs acquiring agricultural land.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied more on assumptions and presumptions than on concrete incriminating material. There was no actual evidence presented to support the allegation of an on-money payment by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on assumptions and presumptions rather than incriminating material. There was no actual evidence presented to support the on-money allegation against the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done in the interest of justice to allow the assessee to present all facts and for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps and, in the interest of justice, restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities to present their case.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings are not sustainable when the addition made is not in line with the original reason for reopening. The assessment framed based on such reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C must clearly state that the seized material has a 'bearing' on the determination of the assessee's total taxable income. Relying on a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found this requirement was not met.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C must clearly state that the seized material has a 'bearing' on the determination of the assessee's total taxable income. Relying on a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found this requirement was not met.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should examine the aims and objectives of the trust before rejecting the registration application. The Tribunal found no specified violation mentioned in the Explanation to Section 12AB(4) that would warrant denial of registration solely on the grounds presented.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the beneficial tax rate of 10% under the India-Ireland DTAA on interest from income-tax refunds. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for re-examination and allowance.