ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — April 2026

DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs MAANAVEEYA DEVELOPMENT & FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 2354/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the 10% interest rate on NCDs as ALP, considering it was examined by the TPO in a prior assessment year. However, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the correct amount of interest.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs BHARATH KUMAR KONDREDDY, HYDERABAD

ITA 940/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 69A for alleged on-money payments were not sustainable. The property was purchased by a partnership firm, and any such payment should be considered in the hands of the firm, not the individual assessee.

VIDYA MUKKOLLA,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD -11(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 46/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

BHARATH KUMAR KONDREDDY,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 310/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 69A for alleged on-money payments were not sustainable. The property was purchased by a partnership firm, and any such payment should be considered in the hands of the firm, not the individual assessee.

MOHAMMED SHABBIR BHOJANI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2317/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not sustainable. Firstly, on the issue of cash received for property sale, the Tribunal followed its consistent view and the decision in *Kesireddy Ravinder Reddy and Yata Ramchander*, holding that cash received as part of the sale consideration for the transfer of immovable property at the time of registration of the sale deed does not amount to a violation of Section 269SS. Secondly, regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings, the Tribunal relied on the Telangana High Court's decision in *Srinivasa Reddy Reddeppagari* and the Supreme Court's concurrence in *Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills*, which held that satisfaction must be recorded in the original assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D (which is pari materia with Section 271E). The Tribunal noted that the CBDT Circular dated 26.04.2016, based on the Kerala High Court's observation in *Grihalakshmi Vision*, clarified that the Joint Commissioner can initiate proceedings, but this does not override the requirement of satisfaction in the assessment order. Therefore, the penalty levied without satisfaction recorded by the AO in the assessment order was held to be invalid and set aside. The decisions relied upon by the revenue were distinguished as being on the issue of limitation, not satisfaction. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 181/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2018-19 was barred by limitation. Consequently, all other grounds raised by the assessee for this year became infructuous. The appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were also allowed.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs SVS PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 2360/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures without corroborative evidence. The seized material from a third party and statements from their employees were not binding on the assessee, especially when retracted. The purchase of commercial space was duly reflected in the assessee's books of account.

M R ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 284/HYD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on seized documents from a third party, without corroborative evidence, are unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon by the AO were retracted and lacked independent evidence to prove cash transactions.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs BHARAT KUMAR KONDREDDY, HYDERABAD

ITA 941/HYD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 69A for alleged on-money payments were not sustainable. The property was purchased by a partnership firm, and any such payment should be considered in the hands of the firm, not the individual assessee.

IKRAMUDDIN MOHAMMED,MEDAK vs ITO (INT TAXN) - 1, HYDERABAD

ITA 2043/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the permissible period of three years (and also beyond six years) from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was also vitiated.

BHARATH KUMAR KONDREDDY,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 312/HYD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 69A for alleged on-money payments were not sustainable. The property was purchased by a partnership firm, and any such payment should be considered in the hands of the firm, not the individual assessee.

S V S PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2141/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures without corroborative evidence. The seized material from a third party and statements from their employees were not binding on the assessee, especially when retracted. The purchase of commercial space was duly reflected in the assessee's books of account.

S V S PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2139/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures without corroborative evidence. The seized material from a third party and statements from their employees were not binding on the assessee, especially when retracted. The purchase of commercial space was duly reflected in the assessee's books of account.

BHARATH KUMAR KONDREDDY,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 311/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 69A for alleged on-money payments were not sustainable. The property was purchased by a partnership firm, and any such payment should be considered in the hands of the firm, not the individual assessee.

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 49/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2014-15Dismissed

The assessee's authorized representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeals. The revenue's representative had no objection to this.

SANTOSH CHAKRAVARTHY ENABOTHULA,WARANGAL vs ITO, WARD-1 , WARANGAL

ITA 2312/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. The Tribunal found substantial defects in the assessment proceedings, particularly the lack of specific bank account details and proper confrontation to the assessee.

LALITHA KUCHIBHATLA,CHITTOR vs ITO ,WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

ITA 2371/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the reassessment order itself, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a previous order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

PIDAPARTI SIRISHA,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 17/HYD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 182/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2018-19 was barred by limitation. Consequently, all other grounds raised by the assessee for this year became infructuous. The appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were also allowed.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs SVS PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 2358/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures without corroborative evidence. The seized material from a third party and statements from their employees were not binding on the assessee, especially when retracted. The purchase of commercial space was duly reflected in the assessee's books of account.

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 458/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a 'developer' of infrastructure facilities, not merely a 'works contractor', due to its involvement in investigation, design, procurement, construction, and post-construction operations, along with bearing financial risks. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IA(4) was admissible.

KRISHNA MURTHY PAIVARDAN,WARANGAL vs ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

ITA 2326/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 50/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Dismissed

The assessee's authorized representative stated that they did not wish to press the appeals. The revenue's representative had no objection to this.

ANITHA AKULA,WARANGAL vs ITO, WARD-1, WARANGAL

ITA 2426/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's medical condition. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside as it did not adjudicate the appeal on merits.

SHALOO MAKHARIYA,ADILABAD vs ITO, WARD -1 , ADILABAD

ITA 2069/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the commission income should be quantified based on the principle of consistency with the previous assessment year. The commission income was estimated at 1% of the deposits.

S V S PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VISAKHAPATNAM vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2140/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures without corroborative evidence. The seized material from a third party and statements from their employees were not binding on the assessee, especially when retracted. The purchase of commercial space was duly reflected in the assessee's books of account.

M R ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 283/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on seized documents from a third party, without corroborative evidence, are unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that statements relied upon by the AO were retracted and lacked independent evidence to prove cash transactions.

RAGHUNATH SETLURI,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2084/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay given the assessee's NRI status and the age of the case, allowing for a liberal approach. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 457/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a 'developer' of infrastructure facilities, not merely a 'works contractor', due to its involvement in investigation, design, procurement, construction, and post-construction operations, along with bearing financial risks. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80IA(4) was admissible.

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs SVS PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 2359/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were based on surmises and conjectures without corroborative evidence. The seized material from a third party and statements from their employees were not binding on the assessee, especially when retracted. The purchase of commercial space was duly reflected in the assessee's books of account.

NITHYANANDA RAO VOLIMINENI,KARIMNAGAR vs ITO, WARD-2, KARIMNAGAR

ITA 2309/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D without the Assessing Officer recording satisfaction in the assessment order is invalid. The Tribunal quashed the penalty, following binding precedents.

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 183/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Apr 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order for AY 2018-19 was barred by limitation. Consequently, all other grounds raised by the assessee for this year became infructuous. The appeals for AYs 2014-15 and 2015-16 were also allowed.

SAILAJA MOVVA REP BY L/R RAMAKRISHNA MOVVA,HYDERABAD vs ITO, (INT. TAXATION) -1, HYDERABAD

ITA 2208/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2023-24Remanded

The tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the AO for re-computation of capital gains and deduction under section 54. The tribunal also held that expenditure incurred for furnishing the flat should be considered as cost of improvement, subject to verification.

KOMMARAGUNTA MANJULA,CHITTOOR vs ITO, WARD-1, CHITTOOR

ITA 417/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice, considering the assessee's background and lack of mala fide intent. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

RAJA REDDY KATANGOOR,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2030/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the AO rejected the books without proper reasons and estimated profit without comparable cases. Following a precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 4% net profit on total turnover for most assessment years.

KAMAKSHI INTERNATIONAL,ANDHRA PRADESH vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH

ITA 1956/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee towards discrepancies in sundry debtors could not be separately added as the Assessing Officer had already taxed the profit element embedded in the unreconciled amount. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding this addition.

AUDHINARAYANA REDDY PAPAREDDY,ANDHRA PRADESH vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 1953/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee towards discrepancies in sundry debtors could not be separately added as the Assessing Officer had already taxed the profit element embedded in the unreconciled amount. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding this addition.

SALEM TOLLWAYS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs ITO, WARD -3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2238/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2022-2023Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after finding sufficient cause due to liquidation proceedings of the holding company. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

RAJA REDDY KATANGOOR,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2032/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the AO rejected the books without proper reasons and estimated profit without comparable cases. Following a precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 4% net profit on total turnover for most assessment years.

NARAYANA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NALGONDA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1454/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a casual approach and failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and the CIT(A), even after being granted a last opportunity. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) was upheld.

ANDHRA PRAGATI FARMERS SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,CHIPPAGIRI, KURNOOL vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ADONI

ITA 2226/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for verification of cash transactions during demonetization. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

NARAYANA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NALGONDA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD,

ITA 1453/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a casual approach and failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and the CIT(A), even after being granted a last opportunity. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) was upheld.

NARAYANA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NALGONDA vs DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1452/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a casual approach and failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and the CIT(A), even after being granted a last opportunity. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) was upheld.

AUDHINARAYANA REDDY PAPAREDDY,ANDHRA PRADESH vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 1950/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee towards discrepancies in sundry debtors could not be separately added as the Assessing Officer had already taxed the profit element embedded in the unreconciled amount. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding this addition.

AUDHINARAYANA REDDY PAPAREDDY,ANDHRA PRADESH vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 1951/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee towards discrepancies in sundry debtors could not be separately added as the Assessing Officer had already taxed the profit element embedded in the unreconciled amount. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding this addition.

AUDHINARAYANA REDDY PAPAREDDY,ANDHRA PRADESH vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

ITA 1952/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee towards discrepancies in sundry debtors could not be separately added as the Assessing Officer had already taxed the profit element embedded in the unreconciled amount. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) regarding this addition.

NARAYANA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HUZURNAGAR, NALGONDA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD,

ITA 1451/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a casual approach and failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and the CIT(A), even after being granted a last opportunity. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) was upheld.

NARAYANA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NALGONDA vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1450/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adopted a casual approach and failed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal and the CIT(A), even after being granted a last opportunity. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeals by the CIT(A) was upheld.

RAJA REDDY KATANGOOR,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 2033/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the AO rejected the books without proper reasons and estimated profit without comparable cases. Following a precedent, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate 4% net profit on total turnover for most assessment years.

PRAVEEN NAGH YERRAMSETTI,HYDERABAD vs ITO(INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

ITA 2229/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation as per the 'first proviso' to section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the AO based on this invalid notice was quashed.