ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 301 days in filing the appeal, citing a previous case with identical facts where a delay was condoned. The condonation was made subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000 to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was passed without proper inquiry and application of mind, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal did not delve into the interpretation of Section 54F but agreed that the assessment order was flawed due to lack of proper scrutiny.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 08/04/2022 was barred by limitation as per the 'first proviso' to Section 149 of the Act. This proviso restricts the issuance of such notices after 31/03/2022 for AY 2015-16, considering the unamended Section 149. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the counsel's mistake and the principle of substantial justice. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the additions made towards short-term capital gains for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the counsel's mistake and the principle of substantial justice. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the additions made towards short-term capital gains for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the counsel's mistake and the principle of substantial justice. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the additions made towards short-term capital gains for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing evidence of land ownership, lease confirmations, and a cash flow statement. Rejection of the claim solely for the absence of a written lease deed was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the counsel's mistake and the principle of substantial justice. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the additions made towards short-term capital gains for the relevant assessment years.

The ITAT held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was inordinate and not sufficiently explained by the assessee's medical ailments. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal as inadmissible.

The Tribunal noted that an identical issue for the same assessment year was previously remanded to the CIT(A) for consideration in light of a Supreme Court judgment. Following the principle of consistency and in view of the prior order, the Tribunal also remanded the present matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider the relevant record, pending appeals, and other material, and pass a reasoned order, binding by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) is also to allow sufficient opportunities to the assessee and obtain a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the approval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the appropriate authority, i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, as mandated by Section 151(2). The approval was granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was not statutorily empowered.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A applies only when there is income in relation to which expenditure is incurred. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was not a speaking order and failed to decide the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A applies only when there is income in relation to which expenditure is incurred. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A applies only when there is income in relation to which expenditure is incurred. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A applies only when there is income in relation to which expenditure is incurred. Since the assessee earned no exempt income, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. The amendment to Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of diligence in responding to notices but also noted that submissions were on record. The Tribunal held that denying adjudication on merits would lead to a miscarriage of justice and, in the interest of natural justice, restored both matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the delay was vague, unsubstantiated by evidence, and the overall conduct showed a lack of seriousness. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal held that a casual approach and lack of diligence cannot be grounds for condonation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the documents and affidavits submitted by the assessee. The AO's observation that the assessee failed to respond to a show-cause notice was also found to be contrary to the evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee firm had deducted TDS on various payments but failed to deposit Rs. 38,57,609/- into the Central Government account. Therefore, the AO rightly disallowed 30% of this amount. The CIT(A) had upheld this disallowance, and no infirmity was found in the CIT(A)'s view. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of diligence in responding to notices but also noted that submissions were on record. The Tribunal held that denying adjudication on merits would lead to a miscarriage of justice and, in the interest of natural justice, restored both matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the method followed by the assessee for valuing closing stock and reporting impairment loss on raw materials was in accordance with AS-2 and ICDS-II. The disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was therefore set aside.

The Tribunal held that the method followed by the assessee for valuing closing stock and reporting impairment loss was in accordance with AS-2 and ICDS-II. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in disallowing the loss without appreciating the facts.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by admitting additional evidence without following Rule 46A and without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a valid notice under section 143(2) by the jurisdictional AO is a mandatory pre-condition for a valid assessment. Since no such valid notice was issued by the jurisdictional AO, the assessment was without jurisdiction and void ab initio.