ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted written replies, which the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to consider the submissions and allow further evidence.

The Tribunal, citing the Telangana High Court decision in Smt. Shantha Vidyasagar Annam vs. ITO, ruled that no taxable capital gains arise from a JDA if no consideration is received and possession is handed over solely for development, not as contemplated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Since the revenue failed to prove these essential conditions for transfer, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the capital gains addition.

The Tribunal, following judgments of the Madras and Bombay High Courts, ruled that the statutory limitation under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Act for completing assessment prevails over the specific time restriction in Section 144C(13). Consequently, as the final assessment order was passed on 29.07.2024, well beyond the statutory limit of 30.09.2023, it was deemed time-barred and quashed. The Tribunal, however, allowed for the appeal to be revived for adjudication on other merits if a future Supreme Court decision on the pending limitation issue necessitates a modification of this order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's bona fide belief related to the pendency of quantum proceedings, not to the requirement of furnishing the audit report itself. The judgment relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished as the facts were different. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that notices and orders issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) outside the faceless mechanism were bad and illegal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's reason for delay, being an NRI out of the country and thus unaware of notices, constituted a bona fide and reasonable cause. It condoned the delays in both the assessment and consequential penalty appeals. Both matters were restored to the file of the AO for de novo consideration on merits, with directions to the assessee to furnish relevant evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's reason for delay, being an NRI out of the country and thus unaware of notices, constituted a bona fide and reasonable cause. It condoned the delays in both the assessment and consequential penalty appeals. Both matters were restored to the file of the AO for de novo consideration on merits, with directions to the assessee to furnish relevant evidence.

The Tribunal held that the seized development agreement, despite lacking all vendor signatures, contained sufficient details and was corroborated by the subsequent registered sale deed. The Tribunal found that the principle of preponderance of human probability supported the AO's inference of unexplained cash received by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) for share premium was unsustainable as the transaction was between a holding and subsidiary company. Consequently, the penalty related to this addition was also vacated.

The ITAT found the assessee's explanation of personal difficulties and inability to monitor proceedings as sufficient cause for non-appearance before the lower authorities. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, with directions to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal partially agreed with the CIT(A) regarding the general nature of GST refund not being routed through P&L. However, it found merit in the Revenue's argument regarding a potential interest component in the GST refund. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order on GST refund and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify if any taxable interest was received with the GST refund and to decide accordingly.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the no-objection from the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid as it was not in line with the Faceless Jurisdiction Scheme and was also barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for customer advances and sales, and that the cash deposits during demonetization were explained by opening cash balance supported by sales bills. The additions made by the AO were therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order, dated 06.06.2024, was passed beyond the extended time limit prescribed under Section 153(4) of the Act, considering the reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C was valid as the seized documents sufficiently related to the assessee. The additions made on the basis of these documents were also found to be sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 153(1) and 153(4) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's mother's illness. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including event income, were within the 20% limit prescribed by the proviso to Section 2(15) for entities engaged in general public utility. It also noted that Form 10 was indeed filed. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11.