ITAT Delhi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal dismissed all ten appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the mere pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. is not a ground to adopt a different approach when a binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court exists. The Tribunal upheld the learned CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Section 153C assessments. The reasoning was based on recent judicial precedents, including CIT-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. and PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., which established that the relevant date for calculating the block period under Section 153C(1), read with the first proviso, is the date of receiving the concerned seized material by the assessees' jurisdictional Assessing Officers. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the block period should be calculated from the date of the search, as the CIT(A) had correctly determined that none of the assessment years involved fell within the specified period based on the date of receipt of seized material. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

The Tribunal considered the findings of the lower authorities and the reasons provided by the assessee for the belated filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal found sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was also directed to file all required details and documents in a timely manner. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 21 lakhs on account of cash found during the search was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that the assessee, along with his family, had withdrawn a significant amount of cash during the period under consideration, and the cash found during the search (Rs. 21 lakhs) was explained by these withdrawals. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue were allowed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1.56 crores on account of gold jewelry, the Tribunal noted that the AO rejected the assessee's contention that the ornaments were acquired by way of gifts and that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence. However, the Tribunal referred to various decisions of the ITAT and High Courts, including the jurisdictional High Court in Ashok Chhadha (supra), which held that in cases where the assessee and family members have a high income and wealthy status, gifting of jewelry is customary. The Tribunal found potency in the assessee's plea and set aside the order of the CIT(A), directing the deletion of additions made under Section 69A of the Act on account of gold ornaments, as they were at odds with established precedents. The Tribunal also noted that the quantity of jewelry found was within reasonable limits considering the social and financial status of the family and the guidelines of the CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was untenable in law and directed its deletion. The primary reasoning was based on the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had admitted substantial questions of law in appeals concerning the quantum additions for all the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal relied on the High Court's own precedents, specifically CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-2 vs. Harsh International (P.) Ltd., which established that if the assessment itself is debatable, as evidenced by the admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court, then penalty proceedings cannot survive. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a related matter, had observed that if the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is found to be unlawful, the assessment orders and any findings of concealment would be without basis. Therefore, the penalty was deleted as it had become debatable. The issue of violation of principles of natural justice and precise charge was not explicitly decided due to the focus on the debatable nature of the issue.

The Tribunal held that the sole issue concerned the taxation of cash deposits in a bank account, which the AO attributed to the assessee as unexplained income due to the non-filing of a return. The assessee contended that the deposits belonged to Chaudhary Meer Singh Memorial Society, which had recorded them in its books, and that the society's receipts were below the exemption limit under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The Tribunal noted that the society filed returns for Assessment Year 2019-20 onwards, incorporating deposits from the same bank account, which were accepted by the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that solely for the reason of not filing a return in the current year, no addition could be made in the assessee's hands. The additions were deleted, and grounds of appeal Nos. 2 to 5 were allowed. As a result, the legal issue raised in ground of appeal No. 1 was not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan become frozen and binding on all stakeholders, including the Central Government. Any claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished, and no person can initiate or continue proceedings for such claims. This principle applies to all dues, including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if they are not part of the resolution plan. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Essar Steel India Limited, and High Court decisions in TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. and Subhlabh Steels (P.) Ltd. to support this view. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, as the tax claims pertaining to the assessment years involved were deemed to have been extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan, as no such claims were part of the plan.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of unsecured loan under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee had discharged its burden by establishing the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor (considering earning capacity and ability to make payment), and the genuineness of the transaction. The loan was received and repaid through banking channels, supported by bank statements and ledger accounts. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decision in Real Innerspring Technologies (P.) Ltd., which held that loans repaid along with interest through banking channels indicate genuine transactions, and every transaction must be evaluated on its merit rather than suspicion. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed. The issue regarding commission under Section 69C was implicitly decided in favour of the assessee as the Tribunal dismissed all grounds raised by the Revenue, implying agreement with the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of this addition. The appeals for both AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21 were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO relied heavily on digital and physical evidence like WhatsApp chats and retracted statements, rather than conducting independent inquiries. The 'Cash Books' relied upon contained both cash and bank transactions, and the AO failed to reconcile bank entries with regular books or bank statements. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2016-17, payments exceeded receipts, making the net profit addition uncalled for. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the AO's figures and the actual cash book totals. The Tribunal also emphasized that projections of later-year practices (from WhatsApp chats) backwards to earlier assessment years were not permissible without year-specific material. The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of 15% profit lacked a factual basis, and the CIT(A) correctly identified this lack of basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish actual unaccounted sales or receipts attributable to the assessment years. The grounds raised by the assessee were sustained on merits, and the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

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 under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Chamber of Tax Consultants vs. CIT(E), which held that public charitable trusts are deemed irrevocable by operation of law unless the instrument expressly provides for revocation. The Tribunal also noted that the absence of a dissolution clause is not a ground for denial of registration, citing the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in Radisson India Charitable Foundation vs. ITO, Exemption, which highlighted that Section 115TD of the Act addresses concerns regarding the transfer of net assets upon dissolution. Consequently, the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) registration was quashed. As a consequential relief, the Tribunal also quashed the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the Section 80G approval, directing the CIT(E) to grant both registrations/approvals in accordance with law. The Tribunal emphasized that charitable trusts contributing to nation-building should be treated with a fair and reasonable approach by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 153C dated 30.12.2022 was invalid and liable to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the assessee's case was centralized with the AO on or after 22.12.2022, vide order under section 127. Consequently, it was presumed that the condition of handing over of seized material before 1st April 2021, as required for initiating proceedings under section 153C, was not satisfied. The Tribunal noted that the revenue could not provide documentary evidence to controvert this factual position or prove that the date of deemed search was prior to 1st April 2021. In light of the above facts, circumstances, and judicial pronouncements in Ojjus Medicare and Harigovind, the Tribunal quashed the notice under section 153C. As the proceedings under section 153C were quashed, all other legal and factual grounds were rendered academic and not adjudicated upon. The operative direction was to quash the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was untenable in law and directed its deletion. The primary reasoning was based on the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had admitted substantial questions of law in appeals concerning the quantum additions for all the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal relied on the High Court's own precedents, specifically CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-2 vs. Harsh International (P.) Ltd., which established that if the assessment itself is debatable, as evidenced by the admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court, then penalty proceedings cannot survive. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a related matter, had observed that if the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is found to be unlawful, the assessment orders and any findings of concealment would be without basis. Therefore, the penalty was deleted as it had become debatable. The issue of violation of principles of natural justice and precise charge was not explicitly decided due to the focus on the debatable nature of the issue.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee to Jet Airways do not fall under the category of FTS under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA or Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provides a software system on a subscription basis, and the revenue is earned per passenger. The assessee's assertion of no human intervention and the use of a standard facility for services, with servers located outside India, was not rebutted by the Revenue. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including *Bharti Cellular Ltd. v CIT*, *Skycell Communications Ltd.*, and *Kotak Securities Ltd.*, which emphasize the necessity of human interface or direct and constant involvement of human endeavor for services to be classified as technical services. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the 'make available' clause was not fulfilled, as Jet Airways does not apply the technology independently, is not privy to it, and the assessee retains intellectual property rights. Training and support services were limited to system usage and did not transfer technology. Therefore, the consideration received does not qualify as FTS. Grounds 1 to 5 were allowed. Ground 6 (interest under Section 234B) and Ground 7 (penalty under Section 270A) were noted as consequential and premature, respectively.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasoning was based on the principle that for Section 153C proceedings to be valid, the AO must be satisfied that the seized or requisitioned material pertains to the assessee and has a bearing on the determination of their total income. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction notes recorded by the AO were mechanical and lacked specific reasons as to how the discovered material was likely to have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. Reliance was placed on the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Saksham Commodities, which clearly held that seized books of accounts, documents, or assets must pertain to the assessee and have a bearing on the determination of their total income. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the consequent assessment orders. The grounds of appeal related to the invalid initiation of proceedings were allowed. As the legal grounds were allowed, other grounds became academic and were not adjudicated. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed all ten appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the mere pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the decision in PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. is not a ground to adopt a different approach when a binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court exists. The Tribunal upheld the learned CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Section 153C assessments. The reasoning was based on recent judicial precedents, including CIT-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. and PCIT vs. Ojjus Medicare (P) Ltd., which established that the relevant date for calculating the block period under Section 153C(1), read with the first proviso, is the date of receiving the concerned seized material by the assessees' jurisdictional Assessing Officers. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contention that the block period should be calculated from the date of the search, as the CIT(A) had correctly determined that none of the assessment years involved fell within the specified period based on the date of receipt of seized material. All other pleadings on merits were rendered academic.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The reasoning was that the ends of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on its merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee cited a critical illness of the proprietor's brother as the reason for the delay, supported by medical evidence. It also observed that the assessee failed to appear before the NFAC for similar reasons, despite notices being sent via ITBA/email. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issues on merits and law to the file of the NFAC. The operative direction was to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing before the NFAC and to ensure that notices are sent to the email address provided in Form 35 and Form 36. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasoning was based on the principle that for Section 153C proceedings to be valid, the AO must be satisfied that the seized or requisitioned material pertains to the assessee and has a bearing on the determination of their total income. The Tribunal noted that the satisfaction notes recorded by the AO were mechanical and lacked specific reasons as to how the discovered material was likely to have a bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment years. Reliance was placed on the jurisdictional Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Saksham Commodities, which clearly held that seized books of accounts, documents, or assets must pertain to the assessee and have a bearing on the determination of their total income. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the consequent assessment orders. The grounds of appeal related to the invalid initiation of proceedings were allowed. As the legal grounds were allowed, other grounds became academic and were not adjudicated. The appeals were allowed.

For AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, the Tribunal held that there was absolutely no material before it or in the impugned orders of the lower authorities to suggest that the AO had relied on any seized material or called for explanations based on incriminating material found during the search of the group. The Tribunal found no substance in the grounds raised by the department and agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that in the absence of incriminating material found or seized during the search, the additions could not be sustained for these AYs. The Tribunal thus upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). For AY 2018-19 to 2020-21, the Tribunal noted the admitted position that the assessee trust runs educational institutions. The AO alleged diversion of funds to other entities controlled by the chairman for personal benefit. Specifically, for AY 2018-19, an allegation of diversion of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- to M/s Tirupati Realbuild Pvt. Ltd. was made, with the AO observing that this entity and others were used as conduits for channeling funds. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the denial of exemption and taxation of surplus for these years, but it details the allegations and the AO's observations regarding fund diversion. The operative part of the judgment for these years is not fully elaborated in the provided text, but the Tribunal's reasoning for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 suggests a focus on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee to Jet Airways do not fall under the category of FTS under Article 12(5) of the India-Netherlands DTAA or Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provides a software system on a subscription basis, and the revenue is earned per passenger. The assessee's assertion of no human intervention and the use of a standard facility for services, with servers located outside India, was not rebutted by the Revenue. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including *Bharti Cellular Ltd. v CIT*, *Skycell Communications Ltd.*, and *Kotak Securities Ltd.*, which emphasize the necessity of human interface or direct and constant involvement of human endeavor for services to be classified as technical services. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the 'make available' clause was not fulfilled, as Jet Airways does not apply the technology independently, is not privy to it, and the assessee retains intellectual property rights. Training and support services were limited to system usage and did not transfer technology. Therefore, the consideration received does not qualify as FTS. Grounds 1 to 5 were allowed. Ground 6 (interest under Section 234B) and Ground 7 (penalty under Section 270A) were noted as consequential and premature, respectively.

For AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, the Tribunal held that there was absolutely no material before it or in the impugned orders of the lower authorities to suggest that the AO had relied on any seized material or called for explanations based on incriminating material found during the search of the group. The Tribunal found no substance in the grounds raised by the department and agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that in the absence of incriminating material found or seized during the search, the additions could not be sustained for these AYs. The Tribunal thus upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). For AY 2018-19 to 2020-21, the Tribunal noted the admitted position that the assessee trust runs educational institutions. The AO alleged diversion of funds to other entities controlled by the chairman for personal benefit. Specifically, for AY 2018-19, an allegation of diversion of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- to M/s Tirupati Realbuild Pvt. Ltd. was made, with the AO observing that this entity and others were used as conduits for channeling funds. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the denial of exemption and taxation of surplus for these years, but it details the allegations and the AO's observations regarding fund diversion. The operative part of the judgment for these years is not fully elaborated in the provided text, but the Tribunal's reasoning for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 suggests a focus on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal considered the findings of the lower authorities and the arguments presented by both sides. The Tribunal was of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and also directed the assessee to file all relevant details and documents in time. The specific findings on the additions made under Section 69 and the validity of the ex-parte order were not definitively decided but were to be re-examined by the CIT(A). No issue was expressly left undecided.

For AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, the Tribunal held that there was absolutely no material before it or in the impugned orders of the lower authorities to suggest that the AO had relied on any seized material or called for explanations based on incriminating material found during the search of the group. The Tribunal found no substance in the grounds raised by the department and agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that in the absence of incriminating material found or seized during the search, the additions could not be sustained for these AYs. The Tribunal thus upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). For AY 2018-19 to 2020-21, the Tribunal noted the admitted position that the assessee trust runs educational institutions. The AO alleged diversion of funds to other entities controlled by the chairman for personal benefit. Specifically, for AY 2018-19, an allegation of diversion of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- to M/s Tirupati Realbuild Pvt. Ltd. was made, with the AO observing that this entity and others were used as conduits for channeling funds. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the denial of exemption and taxation of surplus for these years, but it details the allegations and the AO's observations regarding fund diversion. The operative part of the judgment for these years is not fully elaborated in the provided text, but the Tribunal's reasoning for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 suggests a focus on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was untenable in law and directed its deletion. The primary reasoning was based on the fact that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had admitted substantial questions of law in appeals concerning the quantum additions for all the assessment years under consideration. The Tribunal relied on the High Court's own precedents, specifically CIT vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central)-2 vs. Harsh International (P.) Ltd., which established that if the assessment itself is debatable, as evidenced by the admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court, then penalty proceedings cannot survive. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a related matter, had observed that if the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is found to be unlawful, the assessment orders and any findings of concealment would be without basis. Therefore, the penalty was deleted as it had become debatable. The issue of violation of principles of natural justice and precise charge was not explicitly decided due to the focus on the debatable nature of the issue.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) by solely relying on the past cancellation order dated 26.9.2025, without independently evaluating the current application on its merits. It was also undisputed that the Tribunal had previously restored the erstwhile cancellation of registration vide its order dated 5.8.2026 in ITA No. 6766/Del/2025. In light of this, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit both issues back to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to adjudicate the issues afresh, considering the Tribunal's order dated 5.8.2026, and to determine if the assessee trust fulfilled all statutory conditions. The assessee was also to be afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard and was directed to furnish complete details/evidences. The appeal concerning Section 12A registration (ITA No. 6096/Del/2026) and the appeal concerning Section 80G approval (ITA No. 6095/Del/2026) were both allowed for statistical purposes, with the operative direction being a remand.

The Tribunal considered the findings of the lower authorities and the arguments presented. It was of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity to the appellant for being heard and also directed the assessee to file all relevant details and documents in a timely manner. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions made by the AO or upheld by the CIT(A), but rather focused on the procedural aspect of providing a fair hearing. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order, if challenged with new evidence, should be re-examined by the appellate authority after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.

For AY 2015-16 to 2017-18, the Tribunal held that there was absolutely no material before it or in the impugned orders of the lower authorities to suggest that the AO had relied on any seized material or called for explanations based on incriminating material found during the search of the group. The Tribunal found no substance in the grounds raised by the department and agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that in the absence of incriminating material found or seized during the search, the additions could not be sustained for these AYs. The Tribunal thus upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A). For AY 2018-19 to 2020-21, the Tribunal noted the admitted position that the assessee trust runs educational institutions. The AO alleged diversion of funds to other entities controlled by the chairman for personal benefit. Specifically, for AY 2018-19, an allegation of diversion of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- to M/s Tirupati Realbuild Pvt. Ltd. was made, with the AO observing that this entity and others were used as conduits for channeling funds. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the denial of exemption and taxation of surplus for these years, but it details the allegations and the AO's observations regarding fund diversion. The operative part of the judgment for these years is not fully elaborated in the provided text, but the Tribunal's reasoning for AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 suggests a focus on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to contest the assessment on merits. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submissions, supported by affidavits, that she is a 61-year-old lady suffering from cancer and had not received communications from the tax authorities. It was also noted that her counsel had not informed her of the proceedings. Considering these circumstances and the fact that the assessee is a woman, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to allow her to present her case. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh opportunity of hearing and a de novo assessment. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO relied heavily on digital and physical evidence like WhatsApp chats and retracted statements, rather than conducting independent inquiries. The 'Cash Books' relied upon contained both cash and bank transactions, and the AO failed to reconcile bank entries with regular books or bank statements. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2016-17, payments exceeded receipts, making the net profit addition uncalled for. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the AO's figures and the actual cash book totals. The Tribunal also emphasized that projections of later-year practices (from WhatsApp chats) backwards to earlier assessment years were not permissible without year-specific material. The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of 15% profit lacked a factual basis, and the CIT(A) correctly identified this lack of basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish actual unaccounted sales or receipts attributable to the assessment years. The grounds raised by the assessee were sustained on merits, and the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were untenable in the eyes of law. The Assessing Officer issued multiple notices on different dates, mentioning Section 271AAB of the Act but failing to specify the exact limb or the various conditions provided under the section. The Tribunal noted that Section 271AAB(1A) has distinct limbs, clause (a) and clause (b), with different penalty rates and conditions. It is mandatory for the AO to clearly specify in the show-cause notice the precise limb under which the penalty is sought to be levied, as the consequences differ. The failure to do so renders the notice technically incorrect and fatally flawed. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of a co-ordinate bench in Assam Hire Purchase Company P. Ltd v DCIT, which held that the omission to mention the specific limb of Section 271AAB vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was quashed. The ground raised by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned long-term capital gains addition of Rs. 7,83,318/- could not be sustained. The reasoning was that there was no clear-cut finding in the orders of the lower authorities as to whether the agricultural lands sold by the assessee qualified as a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Consequently, the addition was deleted for this precise reason. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO relied heavily on digital and physical evidence like WhatsApp chats and retracted statements, rather than conducting independent inquiries. The 'Cash Books' relied upon contained both cash and bank transactions, and the AO failed to reconcile bank entries with regular books or bank statements. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2016-17, payments exceeded receipts, making the net profit addition uncalled for. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the AO's figures and the actual cash book totals. The Tribunal also emphasized that projections of later-year practices (from WhatsApp chats) backwards to earlier assessment years were not permissible without year-specific material. The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of 15% profit lacked a factual basis, and the CIT(A) correctly identified this lack of basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish actual unaccounted sales or receipts attributable to the assessment years. The grounds raised by the assessee were sustained on merits, and the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Prescribed Authority's approach of singling out one or two clauses from the assessee's numerous objectives to allege engagement in religious activity was not prudent. The Tribunal found that the assessee's broader objectives, such as running yoga and meditation centers, fighting social evils, and helping the downtrodden, were predominantly charitable. The financial statements did not reveal expenditures exclusively for religious purposes. The Tribunal relied on the principle that merely because a trust has one object of a religious nature does not mean it cannot be established for charitable purposes, especially when other objectives are charitable. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision in Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, emphasizing that the predominant intention of the institution and the proportionality of expenditures on Essential Religious Practices (ERP) should be examined. Activities like running hospitals and educational institutions, even if serving a place of worship, are considered public utility activities. Therefore, the denial of approval under Section 80G and the grant of registration solely as a religious entity were not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the Prescribed Authority was directed to grant the registration and approval within four weeks.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO relied heavily on digital and physical evidence like WhatsApp chats and retracted statements, rather than conducting independent inquiries. The 'Cash Books' relied upon contained both cash and bank transactions, and the AO failed to reconcile bank entries with regular books or bank statements. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2016-17, payments exceeded receipts, making the net profit addition uncalled for. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the AO's figures and the actual cash book totals. The Tribunal also emphasized that projections of later-year practices (from WhatsApp chats) backwards to earlier assessment years were not permissible without year-specific material. The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of 15% profit lacked a factual basis, and the CIT(A) correctly identified this lack of basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish actual unaccounted sales or receipts attributable to the assessment years. The grounds raised by the assessee were sustained on merits, and the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided that the delay of 194 days in filing the appeals should be condoned. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee's explanation for the delay, which was an attempt to refile the applications afresh, was acceptable. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal held that the rejection of registration and cancellation of approval due to the inadvertent mention of the wrong provision of law in the online application was a technical glitch that should not prejudice the assessee's substantial rights. The Tribunal was of the considered view that the ends of justice required giving the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits. Therefore, the issue on the merits of the assessee's claim was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to allow the assessee to revise its application, mentioning the correct provision of law under which it intended to seek registration and corresponding approval. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Prescribed Authority's approach of singling out one or two clauses from the assessee's numerous objectives to allege engagement in religious activity was not prudent. The Tribunal found that the assessee's broader objectives, such as running yoga and meditation centers, fighting social evils, and helping the downtrodden, were predominantly charitable. The financial statements did not reveal expenditures exclusively for religious purposes. The Tribunal relied on the principle that merely because a trust has one object of a religious nature does not mean it cannot be established for charitable purposes, especially when other objectives are charitable. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision in Baba Banda Singh Bahadur, emphasizing that the predominant intention of the institution and the proportionality of expenditures on Essential Religious Practices (ERP) should be examined. Activities like running hospitals and educational institutions, even if serving a place of worship, are considered public utility activities. Therefore, the denial of approval under Section 80G and the grant of registration solely as a religious entity were not sustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the Prescribed Authority was directed to grant the registration and approval within four weeks.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 35,70,000 on account of unexplained investment in time deposits was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had placed on record the income tax return acknowledgement, Form 16, and bank statements of her husband, Mr. Anurag Mishra, as well as her own bank statements. A perusal of these statements clearly showed periodic fund transfers from the husband to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the net amount received from the husband during FY 2018-19 was Rs. 29,67,406, out of which Rs. 27,01,300 was invested in fixed deposits. The Tribunal observed that the AO's figure of Rs. 35,70,000 was incorrect and that the actual investment was Rs. 27,01,300, which was properly sourced from the husband's salary. Therefore, the addition was deleted. Regarding the interest income of Rs. 68,078, the Tribunal held that it emanated from funds received from the husband as a gift. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal directed the AO to club and assess this interest income in the hands of the husband, Mr. Anurag Mishra, under Section 64 of the Act, and delete it from the hands of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard were allowed.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan become frozen and binding on all stakeholders, including the Central Government. Any claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished, and no person can initiate or continue proceedings for such claims. This principle applies to all dues, including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if they are not part of the resolution plan. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Essar Steel India Limited, and High Court decisions in TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. and Subhlabh Steels (P.) Ltd. to support this view. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, as the tax claims pertaining to the assessment years involved were deemed to have been extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan, as no such claims were part of the plan.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal found that the AO relied heavily on digital and physical evidence like WhatsApp chats and retracted statements, rather than conducting independent inquiries. The 'Cash Books' relied upon contained both cash and bank transactions, and the AO failed to reconcile bank entries with regular books or bank statements. The Tribunal noted that for AY 2016-17, payments exceeded receipts, making the net profit addition uncalled for. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the AO's figures and the actual cash book totals. The Tribunal also emphasized that projections of later-year practices (from WhatsApp chats) backwards to earlier assessment years were not permissible without year-specific material. The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of 15% profit lacked a factual basis, and the CIT(A) correctly identified this lack of basis. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to establish actual unaccounted sales or receipts attributable to the assessment years. The grounds raised by the assessee were sustained on merits, and the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The reasoning was that the ends of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to contest the matter on its merits. The Tribunal noted that the assessee cited a critical illness of the proprietor's brother as the reason for the delay, supported by medical evidence. It also observed that the assessee failed to appear before the NFAC for similar reasons, despite notices being sent via ITBA/email. The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issues on merits and law to the file of the NFAC. The operative direction was to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing before the NFAC and to ensure that notices are sent to the email address provided in Form 35 and Form 36. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan become frozen and binding on all stakeholders, including the Central Government. Any claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished, and no person can initiate or continue proceedings for such claims. This principle applies to all dues, including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if they are not part of the resolution plan. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Essar Steel India Limited, and High Court decisions in TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. and Subhlabh Steels (P.) Ltd. to support this view. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, as the tax claims pertaining to the assessment years involved were deemed to have been extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan, as no such claims were part of the plan.

The Tribunal held that no addition could be made under Section 68 for cash deposited during the demonetization period when the books of account were not doubted and the sales declared by the assessee were accepted. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted all details regarding cash sales, including sales bills, sales register, daily cash book, stock register, and VAT returns, which were not disputed by the AO. The Tribunal relied on the coordinate bench decisions in Kanchan Chopra and Deepak Sharma, which held that once purchases and sales are accepted and supported by stock availability, cash deposits arising from such sales cannot be treated as unexplained credits. The Tribunal also observed that the addition would lead to double taxation as the sales were already part of the declared income. Regarding Section 115BBE, since the addition under Section 68 was deleted, the issue became academic and required no adjudication. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan become frozen and binding on all stakeholders, including the Central Government. Any claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished, and no person can initiate or continue proceedings for such claims. This principle applies to all dues, including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if they are not part of the resolution plan. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Essar Steel India Limited, and High Court decisions in TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. and Subhlabh Steels (P.) Ltd. to support this view. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, as the tax claims pertaining to the assessment years involved were deemed to have been extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan, as no such claims were part of the plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, respectfully following the judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in PCIT(Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) had correctly held that Assessment Year 2014-15 fell beyond the six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ojjus Medicare held that for Section 153C, the date of search in the case of a non-searched person is deemed to be the date of receiving the seized material by the jurisdictional AO. The CIT(A) had determined the relevant period for Section 153C to be AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23, making AY 2014-15 fall outside this period. The Tribunal also referred to directions issued by the Delhi High Court in a separate writ petition concerning the assessee (Misha Gupta v. ACIT) for AY 2016-17, which quashed the notice under Section 153C and directed the AO to re-examine the issue based on specific observations. The Tribunal issued similar directions for AY 2014-15 and directed the AO to implement them. The parties are bound by the outcome of the SLP filed by the Revenue against the Ojjus Medicare judgment before the Supreme Court. The additions made by the AO were consequently deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the source of funds for the investment in the immovable property. The assessee had provided bank statements, confirmations, and ITRs to substantiate the sources. The Tribunal noted that Unialmaz Jaipur is a partnership firm where the assessee is a partner, Dhaval Jain is the assessee's son, Subhash Chand & Sons HUF is the assessee's HUF, and Amit Jain is an unrelated third party. The Tribunal found that the documents furnished by the assessee in support of his contentions were not considered by the lower authorities, leading to the addition of Rs. 42,50,000/-. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 42,50,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not yet adjudicated the additions made on a substantive basis. It was of the considered view that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the case of substantive addition first, and then taken up the protective additions, or at best, decided both simultaneously. Since this was not done, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on substantive addition first, and thereafter, the appeal on protective assessment should be taken up. The findings in ITA No. 499/Del/2026 were to apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 500/Del/2026. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not yet adjudicated the additions made on a substantive basis. It was of the considered view that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the case of substantive addition first, and then taken up the protective additions, or at best, decided both simultaneously. Since this was not done, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on substantive addition first, and thereafter, the appeal on protective assessment should be taken up. The findings in ITA No. 499/Del/2026 were to apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 500/Del/2026. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan become frozen and binding on all stakeholders, including the Central Government. Any claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished, and no person can initiate or continue proceedings for such claims. This principle applies to all dues, including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if they are not part of the resolution plan. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Essar Steel India Limited, and High Court decisions in TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. and Subhlabh Steels (P.) Ltd. to support this view. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, as the tax claims pertaining to the assessment years involved were deemed to have been extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan, as no such claims were part of the plan.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 were bad in law and vitiated the entire reassessment process. The Tribunal noted that the case was re-opened after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. While the satisfaction recorded in the order passed under section 148A(d) was for an escapement of income of INR 12,10,77,622/-, the addition made in the final assessment order under section 148 was INR 24,21,552/-, which was arrived at by applying a 2% commission rate. This addition was less than the threshold limit of INR 50.00 Lakhs prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act for reopening beyond three years. The Tribunal, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rohan Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, held that once the condition stipulated in section 149(1)(b) is not fulfilled, the proceedings cannot be completed under section 147. Therefore, Ground of appeal No. 7 raised by the assessee was allowed. Since the legal grounds were allowed and the reassessment order quashed, the remaining grounds of appeal were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The AO initiated the reopening on March 28, 2021, which was beyond four years from the end of Assessment Year 2013-14. The AO's reasons for reopening were based on the assessee reducing excise duty from sales, which the AO claimed constituted a failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not provided any other reason for initiating the reopening, specifically pinpointing the assessee's failure in this instance. Citing the case laws of HCL Technologies Vs. DCIT, Discovery Communication Inc Vs. Addl. CIT, and Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, the Tribunal quashed the reopening. All other pleadings were rendered academic. The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan become frozen and binding on all stakeholders, including the Central Government. Any claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished, and no person can initiate or continue proceedings for such claims. This principle applies to all dues, including statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if they are not part of the resolution plan. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Ghanshyam Mishra and Essar Steel India Limited, and High Court decisions in TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. and Subhlabh Steels (P.) Ltd. to support this view. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed, as the tax claims pertaining to the assessment years involved were deemed to have been extinguished upon the approval of the resolution plan, as no such claims were part of the plan.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unsustainable. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing the ITRs, bank statements, and audited accounts of the three purchasing companies. The AO's sole reason for rejecting the explanation was the non-response to notices under Section 133(6). The Tribunal noted that the AO had not recorded any adverse comments on the furnished documents and that the purchase of shares by the assessee in earlier years was not disputed. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- was directed to be deleted. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 36,000/- under Section 69C, which was consequential to the Section 68 addition, was also directed to be deleted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.