ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — April 2026

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) was not applicable as the assessee had not admitted any income and thus had no advance tax liability. The matter was set aside to the AO to examine the cash deposits in light of overall business activity and estimate income under Section 44AD.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 36 days, finding the reasons to be sufficient cause and beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to adopt a turnover filter was justified, citing High Court decisions. It also upheld the inclusion of 'Evoke Technologies (P) Ltd' as a comparable, finding that its financial data for Indian operations was available. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's contention that a limited number of comparables would not yield a reliable benchmarking.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who is not the prescribed authority for notices issued beyond three years. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim of being a commission agent was unsubstantiated, the AO's estimation of profit at 12.5% was excessive. Citing a previous case with similar circumstances, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate income at 4% of the total bank credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 295 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the assessee company had discontinued its business operations due to continuous financial losses and its name was struck off from the Registrar of Companies. Due to the closure of business, lack of funds, and absence of staff and administrative setup, the assessee was unable to pursue its tax matters diligently before the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that these circumstances constituted a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, which was not deliberate or mala fide but due to genuine hardship. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in 'Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji' for a liberal approach in condoning delays. The Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the Revenue, finding their facts distinguishable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessment was made under Section 144 due to non-compliance and the appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to his file for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish relevant evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Regarding the assessment, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate net profit at 5% on the total turnover, a middle ground between the AO's 8% and the assessee's requested 3%.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide complete supporting evidence, a complete disallowance was not justified as the expenditure was incurred year-on-year. Therefore, 50% of the sales promotion expenses were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the conditions for opting into Section 115BAA, including timely filing of Form 10-IC. Therefore, the MAT provisions were not applicable, and tax should be computed under Section 115BAA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay. The Tribunal noted the assessee's negligent attitude in prosecuting the case before lower authorities and found the reasons for delay unconvincing and lacking due diligence.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 3,00,000/- received by the mother from her late husband was a plausible source, directing its deletion. However, the estimation of savings from the flour mill business at Rs. 5,00,000/- by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the issue had become infructuous due to the subsequent grant of registration. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to show sufficient and reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The reasons provided were not supported by cogent evidence and indicated a lack of due diligence.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had furnished additional evidence not presented before the lower authorities, the issue needed to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation as the period of six years had expired. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under section 147 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for AY 2020-21, based solely on a WhatsApp message, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause vs. Union of India, which held that a standalone WhatsApp message without corroborative evidence does not constitute valid evidence for making an addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently denied making any cash payments, and the subcontractor had also confirmed not receiving cash as claimed. The Tribunal found no clear evidence of cash transactions between the assessee and M/s. Equus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. based on the WhatsApp message alone. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. The judgment does not explicitly detail the decision on the Rs. 45,00,000 addition for AY 2015-16, but the concluding remarks state both appeals are allowed, implying the Rs. 45,00,000 addition was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, routed through a recognized stock exchange and banking channels. In the absence of specific evidence linking the assessee to price rigging or accommodation entries, the addition under section 69A was not justified. The Tribunal directed that the profit be treated as short-term capital gain under section 111A.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the AO's jurisdiction, based on the assessee's residential status, was a fundamental legal issue that went to the root of the matter. Since the DRP failed to adjudicate this issue, and neither the AO nor the DRP had verified the assessee's actual residential status, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the notice u/s 148 was dispatched on April 1, 2021, it should be considered as issued on that date, thus attracting the amended provisions of Section 148A and Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal further found that the notice was not issued following the mandatory procedure under Section 148A and lacked proper approval from the competent authority as required under Section 151. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent reassessment order were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, routed through a recognized stock exchange and banking channels. In the absence of specific evidence linking the assessee to price rigging or accommodation entries, the addition under section 69A was not justified. The Tribunal directed that the profit be treated as short-term capital gain under section 111A.

The Tribunal held that since the actual escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs, the notice for reassessment issued beyond 3 years from the end of the assessment year was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for AY 2020-21, based solely on a WhatsApp message, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause vs. Union of India, which held that a standalone WhatsApp message without corroborative evidence does not constitute valid evidence for making an addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently denied making any cash payments, and the subcontractor had also confirmed not receiving cash as claimed. The Tribunal found no clear evidence of cash transactions between the assessee and M/s. Equus Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. based on the WhatsApp message alone. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69C r.w.s. 115BBE was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition. The judgment does not explicitly detail the decision on the Rs. 45,00,000 addition for AY 2015-16, but the concluding remarks state both appeals are allowed, implying the Rs. 45,00,000 addition was also deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 257 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on the merits of each expenditure claim.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits on merits. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the sole reason for disallowing the Section 80P deduction was the belated filing of the return. Since the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) which was pending, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to a cost payment. It held that the issue of unexplained cash deposits needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer with the newly submitted evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to a cost payment. It held that the issue of unexplained cash deposits needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer with the newly submitted evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for estimated business profit at 3% of turnover, citing past history and judicial precedents. The addition for unexplained household expenses was allowed for statistical purposes. The addition for excess cash deposits was confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10DA, noting that it was filed before the return of income and that similar cases had allowed the deduction. The rejection of a subsequent application under Section 119(2)(b) was deemed irrelevant to the present appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently established the genuineness of the gift transactions and the source of funds from the donors. The AO's addition was not justified without irrefutable material to prove it was the assessee's own money routed back.

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay unconvincing and not supported by evidence. The explanation of being misled by a consultant was not considered sufficient to absolve the assessee of responsibility. The Tribunal concluded that the circumstances, though unfortunate, did not justify the extraordinary lapse of time.

The Tribunal held that the comparables excluded by the CIT(A) were consistently excluded in the assessee's own case for prior years. The Tribunal also directed to adopt the credit period as adopted by the TPO in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 for computing interest on receivables.

The Tribunal held that the comparables excluded by the CIT(A) were consistently excluded in the assessee's own case for prior years. The Tribunal also directed to adopt the credit period as adopted by the TPO in the assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 for computing interest on receivables.

The Tribunal held that the remittances received by the assessee were on account of repayment of loans advanced by her husband to third parties. Even if the husband's source of funds was unexplained, the income earned in Kuwait by NRIs is not taxable in India as per Section 5(2).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the development agreement did not constitute a 'transfer' of immovable property as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as possession was granted only for construction and consideration was not received.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 80AC, effective from AY 2018-19, requires filing the return under Section 139(1) for claiming deductions under Part C of Chapter VIA. Therefore, the denial of deduction for a belatedly filed return was justified.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid because it failed to specify the scope of scrutiny as mandated by CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) due to the consistent non-compliance and failure of the assessee to discharge its burden of proof. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) due to the consistent non-compliance and failure of the assessee to discharge its burden of proof. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/-, due to the bonafide and unavoidable circumstances explained by the assessee. The Tribunal also set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.