ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing lender confirmations, PAN/ITR details, and bank statements. The AO should have conducted further inquiries instead of solely rejecting the submissions.

The Tribunal held that the deemed date of search in the assessee's case is the date of receiving the seized material, which was after 01.04.2021. Therefore, in view of section 153C(3), no notice could have been issued to the assessee, and the proceedings are quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), despite the assessee demonstrating that a return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice, is an invalid order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

On the first issue, the Tribunal held that the assessee's arguments and supporting documents, including its Global Business License, FPI registration, Mauritius Tax Residency Certificate, and Green Bond Scheme, satisfied the "beneficial owner" test under Article 11 of the India-Mauritius DTAA. The Tribunal found no material to suggest the assessee was a mere conduit and concluded that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the assessee's status as the beneficial owner. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's technical objection regarding the applicability of case law from the India-Cyprus DTAA, stating the core issue of "beneficial ownership" is the same. Necessary computation was directed to follow as per law, and the assessee's ground succeeded. On the second issue concerning Section 194LD, the Tribunal, by strictly interpreting the language of the statute, held that "rupee denominated bond" does not include Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs). The Tribunal rejected the assessee's arguments based on definitions in the Companies Act and the PCCIT's instructions, citing the principle of "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" and the lack of statutory force of the PCCIT's letter. The Tribunal distinguished the case law relied upon by the assessee. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 194LD applies to the payer/deductor for TDS, not the deductee claiming assessment at a specific rate. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine the alternative argument of assessing interest income as per the relevant Article in the India-Mauritius DTAA afresh. The assessee's second substantive ground was partly accepted for statistical purposes to the limited extent of the AO examining the DTAA aspect.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), despite the assessee demonstrating that a return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice, is an invalid order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the identical issue for AY 2021-22 was settled in favor of the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO/TPO to grant appropriate relief in line with the order for AY 2021-22.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed by an 'Assessment Unit' and not by the competent authority, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, as required by Section 271D. The Tribunal noted that the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021, and subsequent SOP operationalized a 'Penalty Unit' prior to the penalty order date, making the Assessment Unit's action without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment orders as they were passed in the name of a non-existent entity. The Tribunal found it undisputed that the assessee company had ceased to exist post-amalgamation and had communicated this fact.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed by an 'Assessment Unit' and not by the competent authority, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, as required by Section 271D. The Tribunal noted that the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021, and subsequent SOP operationalized a 'Penalty Unit' prior to the penalty order date, making the Assessment Unit's action without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC in the interest of justice. The matter was restored back to the NFAC for deciding the issues afresh on merits after giving the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search, derived from the satisfaction notes, fell after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals. Several grounds were allowed in principle, with directions for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer. Some issues were decided in favor of the assessee based on previous rulings or established legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that issuing a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) with less than seven clear days for reply violates the statutory mandate. Consequently, the notice under Section 148A(b) and the consequential reassessment order under Section 147 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that issuing a show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) with less than seven clear days for reply violates the statutory mandate. Consequently, the notice under Section 148A(b) and the consequential reassessment order under Section 147 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search, derived from the satisfaction notes, fell after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal noted that while courts generally adopt a liberal approach to condoning delays, it is not a right and should only be granted in deserving cases. The assessee's explanation for the delay was found to be insufficient and indicative of lethargy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search, derived from the satisfaction notes, fell after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search, derived from the satisfaction notes, fell after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, stating that the tax demand did not belong to the assessee. The Tribunal held that tax should not be recovered from the wrong assessee on technical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search, derived from the satisfaction notes, fell after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment proceedings and order under Section 153C were unsustainable as the notice was time-barred, following the Delhi High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal held that the AO is permitted to make additions on issues not explicitly stated in the reasons for reopening, but only if the original escaped income forming the basis of reassessment continues to exist. In this case, the AO made an addition on an issue not part of the recorded reasons, and the original basis for reassessment was not substantiated, thus violating principles of natural justice and settled legal principles.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unexplained credit under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee provided additional evidence, including confirmation from the creditor and proof of fire incident destroying records. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted based on CBDT Circular 13/2021, as the seller had already collected tax at source.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance.

The Tribunal held that the AO was lax in his investigation and did not adequately demonstrate the inadequacy of the evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s finding that the transaction was not proven to be bogus was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2), despite the assessee demonstrating that a return was filed in response to the Section 148 notice, is an invalid order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was on account of alleged sale of flats. The appeal was filed against this confirmation.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's explicit request, communicated through their counsel via email, to withdraw the appeal. The assessee stated that the appeal was filed incorrectly along with another appeal that was already under consideration. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No specific issues were decided on merits, and no amount was in dispute as the appeal was withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, as it was issued after the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction note for issuing the Section 153C notice was recorded after April 1, 2021. Following the decision in Harigovind, the date of handing over the material to the AO is considered the date of initiation of search for the non-searched person. Since this date was after April 1, 2021, Section 153C(3) renders the proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a wrong satisfaction that the credits were undisclosed income, overlooking that transactions were inter-group and through banking channels. Estimating commission without establishing the credits as cash credits and escapement of income is bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search, derived from the satisfaction notes, fell after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to condonation of delay. Dismissing the appeals in limine resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had discharged its primary burden by providing details of the intermediaries (SPs/SSPs) who deposited the cash, and the AO failed to conduct further investigation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to condonation of delay. Dismissing the appeals in limine resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO is permitted to make additions on issues not explicitly stated in the reasons for reopening, but only if the original escaped income forming the basis of reassessment continues to exist. In this case, the AO made an addition on an issue not part of the recorded reasons, and the original basis for reassessment was not substantiated, thus violating principles of natural justice and settled legal principles.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of details regarding the date and nature of the alleged transaction, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was unjustified. Therefore, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance but also acknowledged the justification provided for past non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 30 lakhs on account of sundry creditors was not sustainable as the assessee had provided confirmation from Ranju Jain and proved creditworthiness. The addition of Rs. 34,80,500/- on account of closing cash balance was also not sustainable as the cash income was offered to tax and the cash book did not show any negative balance.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeals. Several grounds were allowed in principle, with directions for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer. Some issues were decided in favor of the assessee based on previous rulings or established legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to verify the Will with the other beneficiaries, making the assessee's explanation plausible. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeal was filed before the incorrect forum (ITAT instead of CIT(Appeals)) due to a bonafide mistake. The Tribunal accepted this submission and allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the appeal was withdrawn procedurally. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid because the deemed date of search, derived from the satisfaction notes, fell after April 1, 2021. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 153C was quashed, rendering the assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessment year 2010-11 was outside the permissible 10-year block period for issuing a notice under section 153C, considering the search date and the relevant legal provisions.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ITO was a jurisdictional defect and rendered the assessment void ab initio. This defect is not curable under Section 292BB of the Act.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to make requisite compliance. This was done in the interest of justice.