ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to make requisite compliance during appellate proceedings.

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 restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance during the appellate proceedings.

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 addition made on account of bogus purchases was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Therefore, the assessment order was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses and examine the incriminating material. A consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years, some of which lacked incriminating material, was also found to be defective.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing credible documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share premium transaction, which was accepted by the AO in the remand report.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard on merits because the hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in denying registration under Section 12A solely on the basis of potential commercial activities or the intention to carry them out. The denial of registration under Section 80G was consequential to the denial under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in denying registration under Section 12A solely on the basis of potential commercial activities or the intention to carry them out. The denial of registration under Section 80G was consequential to the denial under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's failure to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses and examine the incriminating material. A consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years, some of which lacked incriminating material, was also found to be defective.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 were time-barred as the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond the permissible period, considering the search was conducted in FY 2023-24 and the relevant assessment year predates the six-year limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on lease rent paid to development authorities, as per Supreme Court precedent. However, the AO should have provided an opportunity to demonstrate eligibility under the proviso to Section 201(1).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay or file a condonation application, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) was beyond its scope as it involved an interpretation of law regarding the applicability of Section 115BAA. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions of Section 115BAA(2) by claiming additional depreciation, thus invalidating the option.

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 found the ad-hoc disallowance of 30% to be on the higher side, especially since the services rendered were not doubted. While acknowledging the unverified nature of payments due to non-compliance, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations for enhanced sales or debtor realizations were not satisfactorily proven with plausible evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-examination of the assessee's contentions and any supporting evidence.

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 notices uploaded only on the e-filing portal do not constitute valid service, and principles of natural justice were not adhered to. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on that addition cannot survive. The penalty is consequential to the addition and cannot be sustained independently.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the reasonable cause presented. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the approval from the prescribed authority under section 151 was mechanical and lacked independent application of mind.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in applying the conditions of Section 54F to a claim made under Section 54. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the condition of owning only one residential property is not stipulated in Section 54, and therefore, the exemption should not have been disallowed on that ground.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was due to potential communication gaps in the virtual hearing mechanism.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is to consider the evidence on record or any further evidence the assessee may file.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's book entries to the extent of the impugned purchases. A lumpsum Gross Profit addition of Rs. 1 lakh was made to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption for leave encashment as claimed, following a co-ordinate bench's decision. The exemption should be within the threshold limit prescribed by the latest CBDT Notification No. 31/2023.

The Tribunal decided to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. It directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to obtain a remand report from the field authorities, allowing the assessee three effective opportunities to prove her case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that his services were not technical. Consequently, the assessee was directed to be assessed under Section 44AD of the Act instead of Section 44ADA.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider and examine documents to be filed by the assessee regarding the cash flow statement and opening balance. The AO was also directed to consider any jurisdictional issue related to an order under Section 127.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bona fide and reasonable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the assessee to make requisite compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the reasons provided were reasonable and sufficient. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's substantial means and the presence of family members, felt that a portion of the cash was justified. They reduced the confirmed addition to Rs. 50,000, granting consequential relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully prove the source of all deposits, the sale of agricultural land created a possibility that the deposits represented sale price. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully reconcile the cash deposits with sales, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 15 lakhs would be just and proper. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's carelessness but, in the interest of substantive justice, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for one final chance to present documents and facts.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of a potential double addition. It set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for re-verification of calculations.

The Tribunal held that since a co-ordinate bench had previously concluded that no cash component was involved in the first assessment year, the same reasoning would apply to the subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the penalties under Section 271DA were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2012-13, made under Section 144 r.w.s. 142(1) based on a satisfaction note recorded on 18.11.2013 (AY 2014-15), ought to have been made under Section 153C. As Section 153C was not invoked and proceedings were not initiated under it, the assessment was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not fully complied with the categorical directions of the DRP. The assessee had provided necessary documentary evidence, including booking confirmation letters, purchase deeds, payment receipts, and possession letters, to substantiate the cost of acquisition. The DRP had specifically observed that rejecting the cost of acquisition despite the availability of these documents was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal found that the AO, despite these directions, determined LTCG without giving the full benefit of the cost of acquisition and cost of indexation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned assessment order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for considering the documents furnished by the assessee to substantiate the cost of acquisition and to allow the benefit of cost of indexation before determining LTCG. The AO was directed to give effect to the order within 60 days. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions under the first proviso to Section 201(1) as the deductee had offered the income and discharged the tax liability. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to file the return was due to negligence and ignorance of law, not concealment of income, especially since the salary was subject to TDS and the filed return was accepted. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that four of the alleged payments were not made, and for the remaining four, the 'make available' condition under Article 13(4C) of the India-UK DTAA was not satisfied, as the payments were for consultancy services. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had placed additional evidence, including bank statements, service agreements, and a reconciliation statement, which appeared necessary for determining the correct tax liability. Citing the principle that the State cannot collect more taxes than due, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-examination. The AO is directed to consider the additional evidence, afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of making submissions, and pass an order in accordance with law. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable as there was no specific column in the Income Tax Return for an individual to disclose such a loan. The AO's order was found to be mechanical and lacking proper application of mind.

The Tribunal found the appeal to be defective. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 41/42 days in filing the appeals was not intentional and was caused by bonafide reasons, thus condoning the delay and admitting the appeals. Regarding the defects, the Tribunal observed that Form No. 35 was filed in ITITA No. 290/Del/2026. For the other two appeals (ITITA No. 288/Del/2026 and ITITA No. 289/Del/2026), Form No. 35 was not found on record. Consequently, the Tribunal restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and remove any defects. The assessee was directed to furnish a copy of Form No. 35 to the CIT(A) within 45 days if it had already been filed. The impugned orders were set aside for statistical purposes with these directions.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 41/42 days in filing the appeals was not intentional and was caused by bonafide reasons, thus condoning the delay and admitting the appeals. Regarding the defects, the Tribunal observed that Form No. 35 was filed in ITITA No. 290/Del/2026. For the other two appeals (ITITA No. 288/Del/2026 and ITITA No. 289/Del/2026), Form No. 35 was not found on record. Consequently, the Tribunal restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and remove any defects. The assessee was directed to furnish a copy of Form No. 35 to the CIT(A) within 45 days if it had already been filed. The impugned orders were set aside for statistical purposes with these directions.

The Tribunal held that the delay of 41/42 days in filing the appeals was not intentional and was caused by bonafide reasons, thus condoning the delay and admitting the appeals. Regarding the defects, the Tribunal observed that Form No. 35 was filed in ITITA No. 290/Del/2026. For the other two appeals (ITITA No. 288/Del/2026 and ITITA No. 289/Del/2026), Form No. 35 was not found on record. Consequently, the Tribunal restored these appeals to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions and remove any defects. The assessee was directed to furnish a copy of Form No. 35 to the CIT(A) within 45 days if it had already been filed. The impugned orders were set aside for statistical purposes with these directions.