ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — March 2026

BALAN PROPERTY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1955/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, a confirmation letter from the customs agent, was material to the issue. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

NISHA KAPISTALAMCHETLUR,TIRUPATI vs ITO, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

ITA 1936/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that common issues were involved in the appeals and decided to dispose them of via a consolidated order. The specific grounds raised by the assessee challenge the CIT(A)'s upholding of the AO's actions regarding the validity of notices and additions made.

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE -3(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2071/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Heard30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that while BAPA is not strictly binding for transactions not covered, the margin agreed under BAPA can be applied to such transactions if the Functional, Asset, and Risk (FAR) profile is identical and no separate benchmarking was done by the TPO. The principle of consistency supports this approach.

VENKATESHAM BELIDE,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1508/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that an unsigned document, seized from a third party without independent corroboration, cannot be considered incriminating material to invoke section 153C. The assessment based solely on such a document is unsustainable.

SRINIVAS BELIDE,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1469/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that an unsigned document, seized from a third party without independent corroboration, cannot be considered incriminating material to invoke section 153C. The assessment based solely on such a document is unsustainable.

NISHA KAPISTALAMCHETLUR,TIRUPATI vs ITO, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

ITA 1935/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that common issues were involved in the appeals and decided to dispose them of via a consolidated order. The specific grounds raised by the assessee challenge the CIT(A)'s upholding of the AO's actions regarding the validity of notices and additions made.

SATYANARAYANA MURTHY KANCHARLA,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2122/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: Heard30 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the credit cards were given to another person for use on commission, but could not provide documentary evidence. However, an FIR against that person and the availability of the person's PAN and email suggested a dispute, making it difficult to obtain evidence. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the AO could have used powers under section 133(6) for better verification.

SUDHEER NEELA,NALGONDA vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1513/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that an unsigned document, seized from a third party without independent corroboration, cannot be considered incriminating material to invoke section 153C. The assessment based solely on such a document is unsustainable.

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2072/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Heard30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that while BAPA is not strictly binding for transactions not covered, the margin agreed under BAPA can be applied to such transactions if the Functional, Asset, and Risk (FAR) profile is identical and no separate benchmarking was done by the TPO. The principle of consistency supports this approach.

CHELLA KRISHNA VANI,NIZAMABAD vs ITO, WARD-1, NIZAMABAD

ITA 2145/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Heard30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay of 17 days was not deliberate and was properly explained. Following a liberal approach towards condonation of delay, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The Tribunal further held that the dismissal by the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits denied the assessee an effective opportunity to present her case.

SURENDER KUMAR BHOJWANI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, INTL. TAXTION -1, HYDERABAD

ITA 2086/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's share in the developed property under the development agreement constitutes an investment in construction of a residential house. Therefore, it qualifies for exemption under Section 54F of the Act.

SHANKAR NEELA,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1512/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that an unsigned document, seized from a third party without independent corroboration, cannot be considered incriminating material to invoke section 153C. The assessment based solely on such a document is unsustainable.

BELIDE RAJU,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1509/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that an unsigned document, seized from a third party without independent corroboration, cannot be considered incriminating material to invoke section 153C. The assessment based solely on such a document is unsustainable.

SUNITHA MALU,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1921/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the AO had made a reference to the DVO but proceeded with assessment without the report, and later failed to incorporate the DVO's report into the assessment. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for re-determination of capital gains using the DVO's valuation report.

ASWIN ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1267/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee had a lackadaisical approach, the disallowance of entire expenses by the AO did not inspire confidence as the firm was not shown to be bogus. The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be set aside for fresh adjudication by the AO after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

RAJAREDDY PERIYAVARAM,CUDDAPAH vs ITO., WARD-1, KADAPA

ITA 384/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a factually incorrect observation regarding the service date of the assessment order. The Tribunal also noted that the additions made by the AO regarding brought-forward liabilities appeared questionable. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

VENSAR CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-17(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1530/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Mar 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years was invalid as the reasons provided by the AO did not state that the assessee failed to disclose material facts fully and truly. Therefore, the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction.

SYNCHRONY INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2073/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Heard30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that while BAPA is not strictly binding for transactions not covered, the margin agreed under BAPA can be applied to such transactions if the Functional, Asset, and Risk (FAR) profile is identical and no separate benchmarking was done by the TPO. The principle of consistency supports this approach.

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1095/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

MADHAVA REDDY BADDEVOLU,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1552/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT/JCIT under Section 148B of the Act for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as invalid.

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1256/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS was incorrect. The sale of agricultural land, being outside the scope of capital assets and exempt from tax, could not be brought within the ambit of Section 269SS for the purpose of levying penalty.

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1255/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS was incorrect. The sale of agricultural land, being outside the scope of capital assets and exempt from tax, could not be brought within the ambit of Section 269SS for the purpose of levying penalty.

AURORA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1257/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS was incorrect. The sale of agricultural land, being outside the scope of capital assets and exempt from tax, could not be brought within the ambit of Section 269SS for the purpose of levying penalty.

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 485/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of third-party statements without corroborative evidence. The assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the adverse witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice.

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 248/HYD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT/JCIT under Section 148B of the Act for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as invalid.

RAGHUNATH REDDY GANGARAM,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 232/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT/JCIT under Section 148B of the Act for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as invalid.

VILAS POLYMER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1886/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT/JCIT under Section 148B of the Act for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as invalid.

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1896/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT/JCIT under Section 148B of the Act for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as invalid.

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 486/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of third-party statements without corroborative evidence. The assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the adverse witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice.

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1091/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 832/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT erred in revising the order regarding the tax on share buy-back as the assessee had provided proof of payment. However, the issue of amortization charges required further examination by the AO.

SYED WARISUDDIN NAVEED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 275/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT/JCIT under Section 148B of the Act for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as invalid.

EXPRESSWAY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 484/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of third-party statements without corroborative evidence. The assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the adverse witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice.

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1731/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 266 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/-, acknowledging the prolonged internal management issues and subsequent challenges in maintaining accounts. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification of records and deleted the penalty.

COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY & HOLIDAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1480/HYD/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions in reassessment proceedings based on additions already made in a prior assessment order, as it amounts to double addition. The disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was set aside.

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1128/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1129/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1127/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1125/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1126/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1094/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

THE PRAKASAM DISTRISET POLICE WELFARE ASSOCIATION,ONGOLE vs ITO., WARD-1, ONGOLE

ITA 1305/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued without the requisite approval from the specified authority, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. The proviso to Section 151, introduced later, could not be applied retrospectively to validate the approval obtained.

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1092/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1089/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1730/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 266 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 15,000/-, acknowledging the prolonged internal management issues and subsequent challenges in maintaining accounts. The Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification of records and deleted the penalty.

R.K DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1618/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that TDS credit should be allowed in the year the income is assessable, irrespective of when the deductor accounted for the expense and deducted the tax. The AO was directed to allow the TDS credit for AY 2020-21.

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1090/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1093/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA(4) is allowable to a sub-contractor engaged in infrastructure development projects, following a jurisdictional ITAT decision in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's reliance on a different case law was rejected due to dissimilar facts.

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 233/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional CIT/JCIT under Section 148B of the Act for the assessment order was mechanical and lacked application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as invalid.

PUTHA BHAGYA LAKSHMI,KADAPA vs ITO, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1780/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's bona fide medical reasons. The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was beyond the 'surviving period' as per Supreme Court rulings, making it time-barred and invalid.