In The Case Of Satya Prakash., ITA No 1736/Del/2026, Dated 06.07.2026, The Delhi ITAT in the case of Satya Prakash v. ITO ITA No. 1736/Del/2026 allowed
the assessee’s appeal and held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the complete absence of notice under Section 143(2). The assessee had duly filed a return of income on 30.04.2022 in response to the notice issued under Section 148, but no notice under Section 143(2) was subsequently issued by the AO. The Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Shaily Juneja and the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal, held that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement and not merely a procedural formality. Importantly, the ITAT held that Section 292BB cannot cure the complete absence of a notice under Section 143(2); the provision can cure defects in service of a notice, but cannot validate proceedings where no notice was issued at all. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue’s contention that the return could be treated as invalid merely because it was not e-verified, observing that the assessee had complied with the AO’s direction to file the return. Accordingly, the assumption of jurisdiction was held to be legally invalid and the subsequent proceedings were rendered void.
In The Case Of Kiara Realtors Pvt Ltd., ITA No 2400/Del/2026, Dated 01.07.2026, The Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in ACIT v. Kiara Realtors Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2400/Del/2026,
held that additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a generalized Investigation Wing report alleging accommodation entries when the assessee has produced cogent documentary evidence establishing the identity,
creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished loan sanction letters, loan agreements, audited financial statements, ITRs, bank statements, confirmations, MCA records, RBI registration certificates and TDS certificates, and observed that the AO had failed to independently examine these documents on merits. Since the lender companies were RBI-registered NBFCs, regular taxpayers with substantial profits and reserves, and the loans were routed through banking channels and subsequently repaid with
interest after deduction of TDS, the Tribunal upheld deletion of the Rs. 1.47 crore
addition under Section 68, along with consequential additions towards commission and interest. The Tribunal also upheld deletion of the Rs.1.17 crore unexplained investment addition under Section 69, observing that the purchase of agricultural land was supported by registered sale deeds and verifiable banking transactions, and deletion of the Rs. 25.45 lakh capital-gain addition, accepting the assessee’s claim that the land was agricultural and situated beyond the prescribed distance. Further, the Rs. 50 lakh loan from an RBI-registered NBFC was held to be genuine as it was received through banking channels and subsequently repaid with interest. Accordingly, the ITAT held that the CIT(A) had correctly evaluated the evidence independently, without being influenced by the generalized Investigation Wing report, and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in its entirety.
In The Case Of Baba Banda Bahadur Sewa Samiti., ITA No 1835/Del/2026, Dated 14.07.2026, In a significant ruling, The Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi in Baba Banda Singh Bahadur v. CIT
(Exemption), ITA No. 1835/Del/2026, held that approval under Section 80G cannot be denied merely because the objects of a charitable society contain references to religious institutions or places of worship. The Tribunal noted that Section 80G(5B),
inserted by the Finance Act, 1994, specifically provides that where an institution
incurs expenditure of a religious nature not exceeding 5% of its total income in the relevant previous year, such expenditure does not disentitle the institution from the benefit of Section 80G. The Tribunal further held that the prescribed authority must examine the actual activities and financials of the institution, rather than merely
relying upon religious objects appearing in its Memorandum. Since the assessee’s financials for the relevant years did not show any expenditure on religious activities, and its primary activities included education, medical facilities and other charitable/public-utility activities without discrimination amongst beneficiaries, the mere reference to construction or maintenance of Mandirs, Gurudwaras or places of
pilgrimage could not be treated as sufficient to deny approval. The ITAT accordingly held that the CIT(E) had adopted a narrow interpretation of Section 80G, allowed the
appeal and directed the grant of approval under Section 80G within four weeks.
In The Case Of Om Sai Industries., ITA No 350/Chandi/2026, 351/Chandi/2026 and 352/Chandi/2026, Dated 12.08.2026,The Hon’ble Chandigarh ITAT in the case of Om Sai Industries v. Income Tax Officer ITA No.350-352/CHANDI/2026 noted that the assessee had duly established commencement of manufacturing activity within the prescribed period for claiming deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by furnishing the substantial documentary evidences, including EM-1 & amp; EM-2 certificates issued by the Department of Industries, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Power Release
Certificate, VAT assessment records, machinery purchase invoices, and other
supporting documents. It was held that the deduction could not be denied merely on the basis of assumptions, conjectures or “preponderance of probabilities”,
particularly when official Government records substantiated the commencement of
manufacturing activity. The Tribunal further observed that the actual timing of the
sale was secondary and that the material consideration was whether manufacturing
operations had commenced within the statutory period. Accordingly, the ITAT directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 80-IC for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17, and all three appeals were allowed.
In The Case Of Udit Cap-Fin Pvt. Ltd. And Shree Shodashi
Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 1735/Del/2026 And 1737/Del/2026, Dated 06.07.2026,The Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Udit Cap-Fin Pvt. Ltd. and Shree Shodashi Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. held that although the search in the Alankit Group was conducted in October 2019 on the basis of which the case of the Assessees were reopened under section 153C of the Act but the satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, as well as the satisfaction note in the assessee’s case, were both recorded on 13.06.2022. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that 13 June 2022 would be deemed to be the date of search. Consequently, in view of Section 153C(3), which provides that Section 153C is not applicable where the date of search is on or after 01.04.2021, the assessment in the assessee’s case could not have been framed under Section 153C and ought to have been completed under Sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act.
In The Case Of Muni Education Society, ITA No 1709/Del/2026, Dated 02.07.2026, The Hon’ble Tribunal directed the prescribed authority to grant registration under section 12A, holding that registration cannot be denied merely because certain loans had been advanced to members or their relatives.
The Tribunal observed that registration under section 12A is only an enabling provision for claiming exemption and that the grant of registration, by itself, does not render the income exempt. It further reiterated that, at the stage of considering an application for registration, the prescribed authority is required to examine only the objects of the trust, the genuineness of its activities, and whether there is any violation of any other law for the time being in force. Issues relating to the actual eligibility of exemption are to be examined during the assessment proceedings and not while deciding the application for registration.
In The Case Of Sandeep Kumar, ITA No 1298/Del/2026, Dated 25.05.2026, The Hon’ble ITAT Delhi has upheld the assessee’s claim for taxation under the new tax regime prescribed under section 115BAC. The Tribunal held that Form 10-IE, having been filed in an earlier assessment year, continued to remain valid unless expressly withdrawn. Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that the claim under section 115BAC had been denied in the earlier year due to the belated filing of the return of income, the assessee was held entitled to the benefit of section 115BAC in the year under consideration.
The Hon’ble Tribunal in ITO v. Ankur Gupta, ITA No. 9072/Del/2025 & CO No. 36/Del/2026, Dated 22.04.2026, quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, as both were issued/passed after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year with the prior approval of an inappropriate authority (PCIT) against the prescribed authority (PCCIT) u/s 151(ii) of the Act. Also it is pertinent to mention that the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, while the cross-objection raising the legal ground preferred by the assessee was allowed.
In the case of Vysya Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT, ITA No. 2482/Del/2024, Dated 19.01.2026, The Hon’ble ITAT Delhi held that where notice under section 148 was issued for AY 2011-12 instead of the relevant AY 2012-13, for which reasons for reopening had actually been recorded, the reassessment proceedings were devoid of any valid legal basis; accordingly, the reassessment order was held to be unsustainable and was quashed.
In the case of Goverdhan Transport Company Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 4731/Del/2024, Dated 24.02.2026, An order has been passed by the ITAT where the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a section 68 addition of Rs. 6.66 crore on share capital was dismissed, after the Tribunal noted that shares were duly allotted to 36 (mostly existing) shareholders, identity and basic financials were supported by ITRs and bank statements, even the “source of source” (sale of assets, FDs, gifts, agricultural income, etc.) was explained, and relying on precedents including NR Portfolio (Del HC) and Lovely Exports (SC), it found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s decision to largely delete the addition, thereby rejecting the Revenue’s grounds.
In the case of Priya Pahwa, ITA No. 1112/Chandi/2025, Dated 12.02.2026, In a first of its kind, Hon’ble Chandigarh bench of the ITAT held that the sanction for initiating reassessment by the PCIT, after a period of three years from the end of relevant A.Y. is bad in law, despite the notice u/s 148A(b) having been sanctioned by the specified authority.
AY- 2018-19
Sanction for 148A(d) by PCIT as on 07.07.2022.
In the case of Manju Goyal, ITA No. 3460/Del/2025, Dated 27.01.2026, The Hon’ble ITAT set aside revisionary proceedings initiated under Section 263 for A.Y. 2016–17. The case arose from a search conducted in the Alankit Group, pursuant to which proceedings under Section 153C were initiated against the assessee. The PCIT had invoked Section 263, holding that the assessment framed under Section 153C was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that A.Y. 2016–17 was an unabated assessment year on the date of recording of satisfaction under Section 153C, and in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., no addition could be made in the absence of incriminating material found during search pertaining to that year. As the satisfaction note did not reveal any seized material relating to the relevant assessment year, the invocation of Section 263 was held to be unsustainable.
In the case of K&S Fincon Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 6556/Del/2025, Dated 04.02.2026, The Hon’ble ITAT quashed reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2013–14 on the ground of limitation. The notice under Section 148 was originally issued under the old regime and later it was deemed to be a notice under Section 148A pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and was ultimately followed by a fresh notice dated 20.07.2022 u/s 148. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal held that the surviving period of limitation had expired on 25.06.2022, rendering the reassessment notice time-barred.
The Tribunal also clarified that a pure legal ground on limitation can be adjudicated even if not decided by the NFAC, reaffirming that limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction.
The Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Naval Seth Legal Heir Ghansham Dass, ITA No. 6210/Del/2025, dated 06.01.2026. The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, as both were issued/passed after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal held that the prior approval had been erroneously obtained from the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas under the amended provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, such approval was required to be taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
In the case of M/s Gehna Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT for A.Y. 2016-17 (ITA No. 4499/Del/2025), Wherein has been held that no addition under section 69A can be sustained where the addition pertains to repayment of a loan which had already been accepted as a genuine loan by the CIT(A) in the year of receipt (here A.Y. 2014-15), particularly when the source of such repayment made during the year under consideration is also explained through documentary evidence.
In the case of Harun Ali, ITA No. 3444/Del/2025, Dated 07.01.2026, The ITAT firmly rejected the PCIT”s stance, emphasizing that limited scrutiny assessments must adhere to the original CASS reasons without extending into broader inquiries. The ITAT ruled that the PCIT”s new TDS angle was beyond the scope of the original assessment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the section 263 order was quashed.
In the case of Ashok Kumar, ITA No. 498/Del/2025, the Tribunal held as follows:
Cash deposits explained by cash withdrawals The Tribunal accepted that the cash deposited was sourced from earlier cash withdrawals. Accordingly, the additions made were deleted.
Enhancement of income without notice held invalid The Assessing Officer had made additions on the ground that the sale consideration from a property was not traceable in the bank account. The CIT(A), after verifying that the amount was indeed reflected in the bank statement, deleted the addition. However, while doing so, the CIT(A) made an enhancement on a different issue relating to the exemption claimed under section 54B, citing lack of supporting documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that such enhancement, made without issuing a proper notice and thereby denying the assessee an opportunity of being heard, was invalid. Hence, the enhanced addition was also deleted.
In the case of Vaksons Metaplast Pvt. Ltd. Versus PCIT (Central), Delhi – 1, ITA No. 2216/Del/2025, 2217/Del/2025 and 2218/Del/2025, ITAT Delhi, it was held that as per the provisions of the Sections 263, Explanation 1(c) of the Act where it clearly states that any order passed by the AO had been the subject matter of any appeal, powers of the PCIT/Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.
Therefore, in the present case, the issue raised by the ld. PCIT in Section 263 proceedings are exactly similar to the issue raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT (A) and since the appeal was not disposed off at the stage, the issue under consideration is challenged before the ld. CIT (A), it can be considered that the ld. CIT (A) had not been considered at this stage.
Therefore, initiation of proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act in the present case is bad in law. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the proceedings initiated u/s. 263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect.
Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section 234A of the Act, this issue is not raised or any discussion in the issues raised before the ld. CIT (A). This issue being new, we are inclined to stay the proceedings initiated by ld. PCIT. Therefore, we are inclined to allow partly the grounds raised by the assessee.
In the case of Dinesh Kumar. The ITAT has determined that the CIT(A) must give proper weight to a remand report, especially one that reflects a favorable view from the Assessing Officer. An order from the CIT(A) that ignores this report and contains no contradictory material is thus legally unsustainable.
In the case of Vandana Jain, ITA 2341 to 2343/Del/2025, dated 21.11.2025, It was held that the PCIT had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act since the issue in show cause notice was already subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in all these cases. Thus, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20 were quashed.
In the case of Amarendra Financial Pvt. Ltd., ITA 2526/Del/2024, dated 26.09.2025, Hon’ble ITAT has once again reiterated that the PCIT has jurisdiction under section 263 only on the issues which are not disputed by the assessee in appeal before the CIT(A).
In the case of Upneet Singh Arneja ITA 110/Del/2025, the hon’ble Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held that sanction for issue of notice under section 148 as on 28.07.2022 for AY 2016-17 by the Pr. CIT is bad in law
Honble Delhi ITAT in the case of Deepak Sharma vs ACIT, ITA 2886/del/2022, SY. 26.03.2025, deleted the addition under section 68 made on account of cash deposit during demonetisation claimed to be arising out of sales, without rejecting the books of accounts. ITAT held:
“Once the purchase declared in the books of accounts were duly accepted then no subjective assumption and presumption could be a basis to assume, allege and conclude sales made out of such purchases were unexplained cash credits taxable under section 68 of the Act.”