ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had withdrawn the cash, she failed to provide satisfactory reconciliation for the redeposits. However, a full addition was deemed excessive, and a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh was considered just and proper.

The Tribunal held that the land sold did not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, thus deleting the long-term capital gains addition. The cash deposits were also deleted, inferring they represented the on-money component of the land sale.

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

The Tribunal deleted the addition entirely, finding no reason to sustain it as the lower authorities had already accepted the assessee's agricultural income and dairy sales receipts.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered in India for the specific contracts were for a period less than 183 days, thus not constituting a PE under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA. Consequently, the 'force of attraction' rule was not applicable, and the revenue was rightly offered as FTS taxable at a lower rate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investors. The CIT(A) had accepted these documents and deleted the additions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a change of opinion without any new material, and it was done beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A) by 295 days, finding sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal with the CIT(A) citing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in reasoned adjudication on merits, thus setting it aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment for AY 2014-15 was beyond the six assessment years prescribed under Section 153C read with Section 153A. The satisfaction note did not indicate that the escaped income met the Rs. 50 Lakh threshold for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2013-14 falls beyond the ten-year period prescribed under Section 153C read with Section 153A, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Therefore, the assessment order was annulled.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and pass a reasoned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee for presenting their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the order of the CIT(A), and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide three effective opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the main quantum appeal was already decided in favor of the assessee, the current appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not fully discharge its onus, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs would be just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 1,04,15,000/-. 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 the penalty under section 270A was not leviable. The AO's reasoning for levying the penalty was not justified, especially since the income was subject to TDS and accepted by the AO without any additions, resulting in no loss to the exchequer. The AO also failed to specify the limb of section 270A attracted or satisfy the ingredients of misreporting.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 191 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation that the delay was unintentional and due to factors beyond their control, including lack of in-house legal expertise and misdirection following the CIT(A)'s dismissal. The Tribunal noted that a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted and substantial justice must prevail, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji. Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal, considering the provisions of Section 273B of the Act, held that the detailed reasons provided by the assessee for non-compliance, such as limited infrastructure and lack of knowledge, constituted 'reasonable cause'. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty imposed under Section 271FA. The issue of whether the penalty under Section 271FA was appealable before the CIT(Appeals) was implicitly addressed by the Tribunal admitting the appeal and proceeding to decide on merits, indicating a departure from the CIT(A)'s view.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of substantive justice, considering the totality of facts and circumstances.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal cautioned that if the assessee fails to pursue the matters diligently, the CIT(A) can take an adverse view.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal cautioned that if the assessee fails to pursue the matters diligently, the CIT(A) can take an adverse view.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below relied on Form 26AS despite the assessee's denial of the transaction. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, but allowed the AO to verify the data in Form 26AS and move for a Miscellaneous Application if it was indeed the assessee's transaction.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered in India for the specific contracts were for a period less than 183 days, thus not constituting a PE under Article 5 of the India-Germany DTAA. Consequently, the 'force of attraction' rule was not applicable, and the revenue was rightly offered as FTS taxable at a lower rate.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening issued on or after 01.04.2021 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment made based on such a notice is void ab initio.

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 acknowledged the possibility of cash transactions in such an unorganized trade and the divergent views on bogus purchases. It decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 5% of the alleged bogus purchases, which would also cover commission expenses.

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 proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable. This was because the satisfaction note was recorded after the amendment to Section 153C, which states that the section shall not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable. This was because the satisfaction note was recorded after the amendment to Section 153C, which states that the section shall not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable. This was because the satisfaction note was recorded after the amendment to Section 153C, which states that the section shall not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) invalidly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C due to a defective and consolidated satisfaction note. Consequently, the assessment proceedings initiated based on this note were declared void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.

The Tribunal held that live broadcast of sports events does not constitute royalty. However, non-live broadcast (post-match content) can be considered royalty. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order to bifurcate the revenue in a 93:7 ratio for live and non-live broadcasts respectively.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to procedural infirmities. The assessee's bank statements did not evidence any transactions with the alleged accommodation entry provider.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were unsustainable. This was because the satisfaction note was recorded after the amendment to Section 153C, which states that the section shall not apply to searches initiated on or after April 1, 2021. Therefore, the proceedings should have been initiated under Section 148.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) by the ITO was beyond his jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of Rs. 5 lakhs for donations to two political parties, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to establish the genuineness of these donations. The Tribunal noted a mismatch between the assessee's donation records and the official donor lists of the recipient parties.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices, as they contended they were not served. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 529 days, finding it to be due to reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case and for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a denovo reassessment on merits, as the original assessment was ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that following a search under Section 132, the assessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 148, as per Explanation 2 to Section 148, and not under Section 143(3). Therefore, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was invalid.

The Tribunal held that live broadcast of sports events does not constitute royalty. However, non-live broadcast (post-match content) can be considered royalty. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order to bifurcate the revenue in a 93:7 ratio for live and non-live broadcasts respectively.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on machinery received and installed by the end of the financial year. It further held that once the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB is established in the initial year, it continues in subsequent years even with expansion.