Loading ITAT cases…
1,815 tribunal orders from the Hyderabad bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 1,815 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) identified corresponding credit entries in the assessee's accounts. The addition was made solely on an investigation report without independent verification or corroboration. The Tribunal set aside the addition and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to examine all documentary evidence, confront it with the assessee, and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly applied Section 115BBE to the unexplained investment and loan transactions, as the assessee's explanation was vague and unconvincing. The rectification under Section 154 was deemed appropriate to correct a prima facie mistake in not applying the special rate of tax.
The Tribunal held that the notices and orders were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism, making them bad in law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal condoned the 294-day delay, finding that the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity of being heard due to the CIT(A)'s failure to serve notices at the provided physical address. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal factually incorrect and mechanically applied, noting that the filing of Form 35 is presupposed upon appeal registration and an adjournment request was duly acknowledged. Concluding that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to consider all materials and provide a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to obtain approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii) of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. The approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot be levied without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction in the assessment proceedings or any other proceedings under the Act. Since no such satisfaction was recorded, the penalty is invalid.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the assessee's consistent non-compliance at all stages of the proceedings (before AO, CIT(A), and ITAT). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders as the assessee failed to provide any satisfactory explanation or evidence to discharge the onus regarding the cash deposits.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, granting a relief of Rs. 5,00,000/- for reasonable cash in hand, reducing the sustained addition to Rs. 15,65,000/-. It further directed the AO to apply a tax rate of 30% under Section 115BBE, as the enhanced 60% rate is not applicable to transactions entered before April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and orders under Section 148A(d) after March 29, 2022, were invalid as they violated the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction was made due to a bona fide mistake and was not an intentional concealment of income. The assessee had admitted the error when pointed out by the PCIT. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the 96-day delay, considering her educational background and lack of familiarity with electronic communication, and that the delay was bona fide. Adopting a liberal approach, the Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to rebut the statutory fiction under Section 2(22)(e). Subsequent repayments or adjustments do not alter the fact that dividend was received when the monies were paid by the company.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection, finding that the assessee did not respond to repeated notices from the CIT(E) nor appeared before the Tribunal or filed any documentary evidence. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(E)'s orders rejecting the applications.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the medical emergency and financial difficulties faced by the assessee during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and examination of records.
The Tribunal held that a claim made based on judicial precedent at the time of filing the return, even if later altered by retrospective legislation, cannot be considered under-reporting of income. The assessee's voluntary surrender of the claim during assessment proceedings further supported the bona fide nature of the claim, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received was in the nature of capital receipt and not revenue income. It also noted that the income would accrue only upon the final disposal of appeals, not on the interim stay.
The Tribunal found the assessee's retraction to be an unsupported afterthought, noting that the initial statement under Section 132(4) has significant evidentiary value. The ledger entries provided by Spectra India Group were insufficient as there was no corresponding debit in the assessee's personal account, nor any corroborative evidence for the claim. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, and the AO's addition under Section 69A is restored.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot disallow expenses and estimate profit based on rejected books of account simultaneously, as it amounts to blowing hot and cold. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on estimated profit without adjudicating other grounds.
The Tribunal held that Section 54(2) is procedural and directory, and non-compliance with it does not disentitle the assessee to deduction if the substantive conditions of Section 54(1) are met. The assessee is entitled to the full deduction as the new property was purchased within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal held that the AO correctly applied Section 115BBE to the unexplained investment and loan transactions, as the assessee's explanation was vague and unconvincing. The rectification under Section 154 was deemed appropriate to correct a prima facie mistake in not applying the special rate of tax.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and orders under Section 148A(d) after March 29, 2022, were invalid as they violated the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notices and orders were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism, making them bad in law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO, outside the faceless mechanism, was bad in law and illegal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note under Section 153C was vague and not based on specific incriminating material pertaining to the assessment years in question. Consequently, the notice and assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO, outside the faceless mechanism, was bad in law and illegal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT was justified in revising the assessment order because the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the complex factual aspects of the EBITDA calculation and its impact on the Section 94B interest deduction. The assessee's explanation regarding Ind-AS adjustments did not absolve the AO of the duty to verify.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and orders under Section 148A(d) after March 29, 2022, were invalid as they violated the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Act was beyond the prescribed limitation period, making the assessment order invalid. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were quashed on legal grounds.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 and orders under Section 148A(d) after March 29, 2022, were invalid as they violated the mandatory faceless reassessment scheme. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
The Tribunal held that notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 after the CBDT notification were invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed on this legal ground.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148A and 148 were invalid as they did not follow the procedure prescribed for National Faceless Assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notices and orders were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism, making them bad in law. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed for want of valid jurisdiction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note under Section 153C was vague and not based on specific incriminating material pertaining to the assessment years in question. Consequently, the notice and assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection, finding that the assessee did not respond to repeated notices from the CIT(E) nor appeared before the Tribunal or filed any documentary evidence. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(E)'s orders rejecting the applications.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly quashed the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) was vague and general, failing to specify the nature of the documents found during the search and the assessment year to which they related, and how they had a bearing on the determination of the assessee's total income. The AO's admission that additions were based on material not initially sent with the satisfaction note, and that the repayment of cash loans was based on a handwritten cash book sent later, further supported this. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the loose sheets found did not clearly link to undisclosed income for the specific assessment year, and that receiving loans does not automatically translate into income. The Tribunal relied on the ratio of various courts, including ACIT & Another Vs. Pepsi Foods Pvt.Ltd. and CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society, which emphasize that a valid satisfaction note must be based on incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the Section 153C notice and the consequent assessment order. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned a 276-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's ill-health as a genuine reason for non-compliance. Noting that both assessment and first appeal proceedings were ex-parte, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo verification, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of limitation. The assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay of 517 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT cannot invoke revisional powers under Section 263 merely on suspicion or disagreement with the Assessing Officer's view. The Assessing Officer had conducted due enquiry and taken a possible view based on the records, which was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing the 80-IA(4) deduction solely because it was not claimed in the original return, as a revised return can be used for such claims if conditions are met. However, the issue of TDS credit for mobilization advances was set aside to the AO for verification due to contradictory arguments from the assessee.