Telangana High Court Judgments — 2025

The Tribunal held that while an assessee cannot reopen assessment to file Form-10, if the revenue reopens assessment under Section 147, the assessee can furnish Form-10 during those proceedings. However, filing Form-10 only before the Tribunal was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that participation in a tender and taking steps towards land acquisition constitute setting up of a real estate business, even if the land is not ultimately acquired. The High Court agreed that this was a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arose.

The Tribunal held that the advances were deemed dividends as the assessees failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the property was mortgaged for the company's benefit and that the loans were not for individual benefit.

The Tribunal held that the advances constituted deemed dividends as the assessees failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the property was mortgaged for the company's benefit and that the loans were not for their individual benefit.

The Tribunal held that the advances were deemed dividends as the assessees failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the property was mortgaged for the company's benefit and that the loans were not for individual benefit.

The Tribunal held that interest under Sections 234B and 234C should be charged after setting off MAT credit. It also held that rectification under Section 154 was not permissible as the issue was debatable.

The High Court held that the income derived from tissue-cultured plants constitutes agricultural income. The court reasoned that tissue culture is a modern evolution of traditional agricultural practices, and the laboratory process is an extension of propagation from mother plants grown through basic agricultural operations.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on a CBDT circular that enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case was below the prescribed limit.

The High Court, following a Supreme Court decision, held that an assessee is not entitled to the benefit under Section 80IB if it loses its eligibility as a small-scale industrial undertaking in a particular assessment year, even if it was initially eligible.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was done in accordance with a CBDT circular that enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals to reduce litigation.

The Tribunal agreed to close the recovery proceedings, noting the meagre recovery amounts, the time and effort involved, and the absence of pending claims against the company. Any recovered amount would be deposited in the Common Pool Fund after expenses.

The appellant's counsel submitted that in view of another related appeal being allowed, they did not wish to press the instant appeal. The High Court recorded this submission and disposed of the appeal as 'not pressed'.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA, even with major utilization for captive consumption. The deduction should be re-computed based on a market rate per unit, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction under Section 80-IA by adopting Rs. 2.53 per unit as the prevailing market rate. It held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA(8) even if a major portion of power is for captive consumption.

The appellant informed the court that the dispute with the department has been settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 12,000, considering his long-standing practice as an advocate and ex-MLA. The total compensation was enhanced to Rs. 7,42,000, including amounts for loss of dependency, consortium, estate, and funeral expenses, with interest from the date of filing.

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024.

The High Court was informed that the dispute between the parties has been settled. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous.