ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the addition of Rs. 11 lacs under Section 69A required a fresh examination by the AO. The matter was restored to the AO for a comprehensive adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate his explanation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding the grounds on merits, as it is statutorily required to pass a reasoned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for unexplained cash deposits (Section 69) and cash credit (Section 68) after considering documentary evidence. However, the disallowance of expenditure was restricted.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period and also after the amended provisions of Sections 147-151 came into effect without following the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was invalid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not actually claimed any deduction under Section 80G, despite an inadvertent reflection in a schedule. Therefore, the denial of the benefit under Section 115BAB was based on an incorrect factual premise.

The Tribunal held that the FTC cannot be denied solely due to the delayed furnishing of Form No. 67, especially when the assessee is otherwise eligible and the return was filed within the due date. Rule 128 is a procedural provision and cannot override the substantive relief under Section 90.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside issues to the AO without proper adjudication. The Tribunal also found that the depreciation issue required re-adjudication based on the principle of passive user.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a bona fide reason and restored the matter to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to allow the assessee to file an application under the proviso to Section 249(4)(b) and then decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the validity of reopening must be assessed based on material available at the time of initiation, not the final outcome. It also found that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claimed cost of improvement, justifying the addition.

The Tribunal held that a credit period of 60 days should be allowed for trade receivables, and for the period beyond that, an interest rate of LIBOR + 200 basis points should be applied for benchmarking. The adjustment was to be recomputed accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were supported by documentary evidence like tax invoices, e-way bills, and banking channel payments, and the supplier had GST registration. The Revenue failed to provide independent material to prove the purchases were fictitious, thus the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition to Rs. 4,07,481/- by allowing Rs. 1,00,000/- as available cash. It also held that the enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable for the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of material gathered during reassessment proceedings, without any addition on the basis of material available at the time of initiation of reassessment, cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, all additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced complete books of account and supporting documents before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination with directions to verify all relevant records.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without proper verification and without assigning reasons or discussing evidence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of material gathered during reassessment proceedings, without any addition on the basis of material available at the time of initiation of reassessment, cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, all additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Since the APA resolved the issues raised in the appeal and the Revenue had no objection, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of non-filing of affidavits for condonation of delay. Since affidavits were now filed and to provide an effective opportunity, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and ought to have adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the counsel's negligence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271A was sustained on a different footing than it was levied, and the AO did not examine the applicability of Section 44AA(2) with reference to preceding years. For Section 271B, it was held that only commission earned by a kachha arhtia constitutes turnover, and the penalty was not exigible as the commission income was below the threshold for audit, and also because penalty for non-maintenance of books and non-audit are mutually exclusive.

The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated more than three years after the end of the assessment year, approval for issuing notice under section 148 must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, not just the Principal Commissioner. Since the AO obtained approval from an unauthorized authority, the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to comply with notices, matters should ordinarily be decided on merits. To advance substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271A was sustained on a different footing than it was levied, and the AO did not examine the applicability of Section 44AA(2) with reference to preceding years. For Section 271B, it was held that only commission earned by a kachha arhtia constitutes turnover, and the penalty was not exigible as the commission income was below the threshold for audit, and also because penalty for non-maintenance of books and non-audit are mutually exclusive.

The Tribunal held that the denial of FTC solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form-67 is unsustainable. Filing of Form-67 is a procedural requirement and cannot override the substantive right to claim FTC under Section 90 of the Act, provided other conditions are met.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of non-filing of affidavits for condonation of delay. Since affidavits were now filed and to provide an effective opportunity, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the cash represented legitimate business receipts and was recorded in the books of account prior to seizure. Therefore, the AO was justified in treating the amount as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxing it under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case with full cooperation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed the impugned order by relying on facts and submissions pertaining to a different assessment year (2018-19) instead of the year under appeal (2019-20). Therefore, the order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive rights, especially for charitable trusts. It allowed the assessee to approach the CBDT for condonation of delay and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to decide the application on merits after the CBDT's decision.

The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, approval must be obtained from higher authorities like the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, not just the Principal Commissioner. Since the AO obtained approval from an unauthorized authority, the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the amendment enhancing the tax rate under Section 115BBE from 30% to 60% is prospective and applies only to transactions from April 1, 2017, onwards. Therefore, for AY 2017-18, the applicable rate remains 30%.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 799 days, citing the assessee's age, medical issues, and bona fide reasons for the delay. The Tribunal also found arguable merits in the case, particularly regarding additions made under Section 69A and the treatment of sale consideration of immovable property.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of non-filing of affidavits for condonation of delay. Since affidavits were now filed and to provide an effective opportunity, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting one final opportunity to the assessee. However, a cost of ₹10,000 was imposed on the assessee for repeated defaults.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a cogent and bona fide explanation for the delay, considering the previous inordinate delay before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay is discretionary and cannot be granted on equitable grounds alone.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, holding that compensation received under BSNL's VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow the exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the appellate authority, holding that compensation received under BSNL's VRS-2019 is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to verify and allow the exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act, as per various judicial precedents. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax liability accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the legal issue raised. It held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under the unamended provisions of Section 149, making the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to dispose of appeals on merits with reasons, even if the assessee fails to appear. Dismissing for non-prosecution without independent reasoning is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Draft Assessment Order was passed beyond the limitation period as per Section 153(5A) of the Act. The Tribunal quashed the Draft Assessment Order, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not justified as the assessee provided documentary evidence for share purchases and sales through recognized exchanges and banking channels. No evidence was brought on record to link the assessee with price manipulation or accommodation entry operators.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back for re-adjudication. This was primarily because the underlying quantum assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had itself been set aside by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the payments for regularization of extra construction were allowable as cost of improvement. It also held that the cost of construction was an allowable deduction, as the sale deed and GHMC regularization order established the constructed area.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee firm was barred by limitation due to the inordinate delay of 825 days. No application for condonation of delay was filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer has the power to reject the assessee's valuation if it's based on unreliable data but cannot substitute the valuation method chosen by the assessee. The assessee is given the option to choose between DCF or NAV methods as per rules.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate certain grounds raised by the assessee and that the issue of taxability of payments to a Nepal entity was not properly examined. Both appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the proceedings before the lower authorities were ex parte and the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for not filing the return was bona fide, as she believed her employer had filed it and was also employed abroad. Since the entire income, except for a small amount of interest, was subject to TDS, the penalty under section 270A was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed.