ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without applying his mind to the merits of the case. Such dismissal is against the principles of natural justice and statutory obligations. The appeal was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing the application should be calculated based on applying at least six months before the expiry of the provisional registration. Since the assessee filed the application within this period, the rejection order by the CIT(E) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law and liable to be quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act after the assessee filed a return in response to a Section 148 notice. This failure was not cured by Section 292BB.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of closing stock difference to the AO for verification. Regarding mine development expenditure, the Tribunal held that it qualifies as plant and machinery eligible for 15% depreciation, allowing the assessee's ground and dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this point.

The Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code while filing an application for registration and approval cannot be a ground for denial. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemptions) to allow the assessees to rectify the mistake and then decide the applications on merits.

The Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code while filing an application for registration and approval cannot be a ground for denial. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemptions) to allow the assessees to rectify the mistake and then decide the applications on merits.

The Tribunal decided to keep a legal issue concerning the benchmarking of interest open, pending the outcome of a Supreme Court decision. For other grounds, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions to the Assessing Officer regarding verification of demerger schemes and deletion of notional interest additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.

The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and the reasons provided by the assessee, citing a Supreme Court judgment to adopt a liberal approach. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a plausible explanation for the delay and that the lower authorities had not served notices at the opted address, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code while filing an application for registration and approval cannot be a ground for denial. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemptions) to allow the assessees to rectify the mistake and then decide the applications on merits.

The Tribunal held that a bonafide mistake in selecting the wrong section code while filing an application for registration and approval cannot be a ground for denial. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(Exemptions) to allow the assessees to rectify the mistake and then decide the applications on merits.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing the application should be calculated based on applying at least six months before the expiry of the provisional registration. Since the assessee filed the application within this period, the rejection order by the CIT(E) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (cash book and bank statements) under Rule 29, citing hard disk failure for previous non-submission. Noting that the cash book prima facie showed a sufficient balance on 08.11.2016, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication to verify the new evidence and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte assessment was made without sufficient opportunity and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering relevant details, videoconferencing requests, or legal challenges to the Section 148 notice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the bank credits, which were claimed to be related to his employment.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the issue on merits, especially when the assessee had furnished some details to the AO. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration and a de novo hearing, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, citing established legal principles that appeals should be decided on the basis of available material. It noted that the assessee had submitted some details to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh consideration on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal admitted additional evidence, including details of bounced cheques for Rs.21 lakhs, clarifying they were not cash deposits. It restricted the addition under Section 68 to Rs.84,240, accepting Rs.2 lakhs as accumulated savings for the remaining Rs.2.82 lakhs. Furthermore, the tribunal directed the AO to re-adjudicate the claim for deduction under Chapter VIA after considering the submitted tuition fee receipts.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation regarding the source of cash from business and rental income to be bona fide and acceptable, considering the nature of his business and past returns, and the absence of contradictory evidence from the Assessing Officer. It directed the Assessing Officer to assess the income under 'Income from Business and Profession' at normal tax rates, setting aside the application of Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal noted a consistent pattern of non-compliance by the assessee before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself. Despite multiple opportunities and scheduled hearings, the assessee neither appeared nor authorized a representative. In the absence of any submissions, explanations, or supporting evidence from the assessee, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte.

The Tribunal observed that both the AO's assessment and the CIT(A)'s appellate order were ex-parte. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution instead of deciding it on merits based on the available records. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo reconsideration, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing, subject to a nominal cost of Rs. 5000/- for negligence.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reassessment order was passed without conducting necessary inquiries or verification regarding the assessee's claim of sub-contracting expenses, which constituted 99% of the contract receipts. This omission rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report (Form 10BB) even with a slight delay, but before the assessment order, is sufficient compliance, and exemption under Section 11 should not be denied. The disallowance made by CPC and sustained by the CIT(A) was found to be not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the nature and source of the credits in the bank account. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not opt for email service of notices from the CIT(A) but also that physical notices were not served. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the matter without adjudicating the assessee's challenge to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to first decide the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing a consistent pattern of neglect and casual approach towards appellate proceedings. The dismissal was based on two grounds: the appeal was barred by limitation due to the unexplained 161-day delay in filing, and also due to non-prosecution given the repeated non-appearance and lack of representation from the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A before issuing the notice under Section 148. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.

The Tribunal decided to keep a legal issue concerning the benchmarking of interest open, pending the outcome of a Supreme Court decision. For other grounds, the appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific directions to the Assessing Officer regarding verification of demerger schemes and deletion of notional interest additions.

The Tribunal found that both the AO's 36% profit estimation and the CIT(A)'s 10% estimation lacked a proper basis. It held that the profit should be estimated based on the assessee's past performance and industry norms.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration for agricultural land, which is outside the scope of capital assets and exempt from tax, cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 269SS for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271D. It also found that there was a reasonable cause for accepting cash.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not without jurisdiction and did not violate principles of natural justice. The Pr. CIT had issued two show-cause notices, and the assessee had provided written replies, which were considered. Therefore, the assessee was afforded a sufficient opportunity of being heard. Regarding the twin conditions of Section 263, the Tribunal found that the AO had failed to make necessary inquiries regarding the non-deduction of TDS on payments to contractors amounting to Rs. 252,49,94,775/-. This failure to verify, as contemplated by Explanation 2(a) to Section 263, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Daniel Merchants (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO. Consequently, the Pr. CIT rightly set aside the assessment order to the AO for re-adjudication after proper verification and affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Pr. CIT's order and upheld it. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach. It held that indexation benefits under Section 48 are not available as the land was not a long-term capital asset. The Tribunal also held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is unsustainable for expenditure related to capital gains.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the proceedings. However, in the interest of justice, they examined the available records. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claim of interest income and allow deductions if eligible. They also directed the AO to verify a specific cash deposit as an internal transfer. A portion of the remaining cash deposits was accepted as explained, and the balance addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue of closing stock difference to the AO for verification. Regarding mine development expenditure, the Tribunal held that it qualifies as plant and machinery eligible for 15% depreciation, allowing the assessee's ground and dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this point.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the rejection of applications solely on the ground of limitation was not justified, especially for pre-existing trusts.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings. Furthermore, the excessive computation of loss was considered an inadvertent error covered under Section 270A(6)(a) of the Income Tax Act, as the assessee provided a bonafide explanation.

The Tribunal found that both the AO's 36% profit estimation and the CIT(A)'s 10% estimation lacked a proper basis. It held that the profit should be estimated based on the assessee's past performance and industry norms.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration for agricultural land, which is outside the scope of capital assets and exempt from tax, cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 269SS for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271D. It also found that there was a reasonable cause for accepting cash.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the extended deadline for paying costs. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating on merits was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the Rs.7,00,98,081/- liability to Net Net Web was regrouped from current liabilities to unsecured loans, and no actual repayment occurred. Regarding the repayment to Mr. G. Amarender Reddy, the assessee provided evidence that the AO and CIT(A) allegedly overlooked. The issue of increase in unsecured loans from other creditors was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's genuine reasons for non-participation (financial crisis and parent company's insolvency). Since the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case and provide necessary details for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It directed the Assessing Officer to allow indexation benefit from the year of construction for the first property and to verify the cost of acquisition for the second property.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was invalid as the property transactions occurred in FY 2015-16. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay vague and unsatisfactory, thus rejecting the condonation of delay. Regarding the addition, the assessee failed to produce any evidence before any authority to prove the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the addition under Section 69A was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the 32-day delay. It ruled that the reassessment notices issued by the JAO were null and void-ab-initio, citing violations of Sections 144B and 151A, consistent with High Court precedents. The impugned notices and assessment orders were quashed, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of additions.