ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the subscription revenue deduction required proper verification of facts and records, not just accounting principles. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the subscription revenue deduction required proper verification of facts and records, not just accounting principles. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the BAPA covered the assessment year in question. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conclusively prove violations of Section 269ST and levied penalty under Section 271DA without satisfying the pre-conditions. The penalty was also deemed unreasonable given the income estimated by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST and that the penalty under Section 271DA was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that levying a 100% penalty was unreasonable when the AO had estimated income at 16%.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was also considered excessive given the income estimated by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered astronomically high and not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to selective reliance on incomplete books and an astronomically high levy compared to estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST and had selectively used incomplete books for penalty while rejecting them for assessment. The penalty was also considered excessive given the admitted income and tax paid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered astronomically high compared to the estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to inconsistencies in seized data and the AO's selective approach.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conclusively prove violations of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to selective use of incomplete records and excessive imposition.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to inconsistencies in the AO's approach and the high quantum compared to estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was also considered unreasonable given the income assessed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding Form 26A for purchases where TDS was not deducted and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. Other additions were also dealt with, with some appeals being allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered incorrect information regarding cash deposits, leading to an erroneous calculation of income escaping assessment. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 beyond three years from the end of the assessment year was found to be barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST and levied penalty without satisfying the conditions precedent. The penalty was considered astronomically high compared to the estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST and levied penalty without satisfying the conditions precedent. The penalty was considered astronomically high compared to the estimated income.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST and had selectively used incomplete books for penalty while rejecting them for assessment. The penalty was also considered excessive given the admitted income and tax paid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to the assessee having paid taxes on admitted income and the disproportionate penalty amount.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for depreciation was bonafide and restricting it as per the ITAT's prior order did not constitute misreporting of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was also considered disproportionately high compared to the estimated income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order on the same day he granted time for submissions, without waiting for the compliance period to expire. The Tribunal considered the evidence suggesting the assessee was in the process of filing documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Since the CIT(A) had set aside the main assessment order for de novo assessment, the order passed under Section 154 was also set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Since the CIT(A) had already set aside the assessment order for de novo assessment, the order passed under Section 154 was also set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to the AO's selective approach and the high quantum compared to estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was also considered unreasonable given the income assessed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was also considered unreasonable given the income assessed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered astronomically high compared to the estimated income.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO)/TPO to compute interest on trade receivables from the Associated Enterprise (AE) by applying LIBOR + 200 bps and allowing a credit period of 60 days. Other arguments regarding working capital adjustment were rejected due to lack of details.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to selective reliance on incomplete books and an astronomically high levy compared to estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in taxing gross winnings as the assessee had incurred a net loss from online gaming. For the disallowed deductions, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of tax paid on the revised income.

The Tribunal held that the additions deleted by the CIT(A) in the first round of appeal had attained finality and could not be re-adjudicated by the AO in the remand proceedings. The grounds related to the lack of notice under Section 143(2) were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were supported by necessary bills and vouchers, indicating they were real and not accommodation entries. The AO's addition was based on suspicion without substantial evidence.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding Form 26A for purchases where TDS was not deducted and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. Other additions were also dealt with, with some appeals being allowed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding Form 26A for purchases where TDS was not deducted and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. Other additions were also dealt with, with some appeals being allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to inconsistencies in seized data and the AO's selective approach.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding Form 26A for purchases where TDS was not deducted and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. Other additions were also dealt with, with some appeals being allowed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding Form 26A for purchases where TDS was not deducted and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. Other additions were also dealt with, with some appeals being allowed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding Form 26A for purchases where TDS was not deducted and remitted the issue back to the AO for verification. Other additions were also dealt with, with some appeals being allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to selective reliance on incomplete books and an astronomically high levy compared to estimated income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered astronomically high and not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits despite discussing the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that while the existence of the building was evident, the absence of supporting documentation for the cost of construction and improvement was a critical deficiency. The AO's disallowance was upheld as per statutory requirements for verified costs.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conclusively proved the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to the assessee having paid taxes on admitted income and the disproportionate penalty amount.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, including condonation of delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the death of the assessee's tax consultant and administrative disruptions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by not issuing a show-cause notice before rejection and by relying solely on one financial year's statements. The matter was restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not conclusively prove the violation of Section 269ST to levy penalty under Section 271DA. The penalty was considered unsustainable due to selective reliance on incomplete books and an astronomically high levy compared to estimated income.