ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2026

For AY 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the Tribunal held that while Section 11 exemption was not applicable due to pending assessment proceedings, the income should be assessed on commercial principles, allowing deductions for expenses. For AY 2021-2022, the Tribunal allowed Section 11 exemption as assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10-IE is directory, not mandatory. Since the assessee filed the form before the assessment order was passed, the benefit of the new tax regime should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- as short-term capital gains cannot be sustained. This was based on third-party information without providing an opportunity for cross-examination to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that accumulation of income for the maintenance of priests/preachers/religious functionaries is a specific purpose and aligns with the trust's objects. Therefore, the disallowance and protective additions made by the AO were not upheld.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the impact of the rectification order on the assessee's eligibility for immunity under section 270AA. The issue was therefore restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a bona fide explanation for the cash deposits, supported by bank statements and his son's income details. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to substantiate their claims, with directions for expeditious disposal.

The Tribunal held that loss on fixed assets due to floods is not a capital loss and should be deleted. It also directed the AO to allow credit for TDS on mobilization advances, as the advance was adjusted against running bills and it was practically impossible to track apportionment for each year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing the assessee's medical condition and a liberal approach. It also held that the CIT(A)'s decision to adjudicate on merits after declining to condone the delay implied condonation of that delay.

The Tribunal held that two separate appeals cannot be maintained against the same impugned order. The present appeal was considered a duplicate and not maintainable.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to substantiate their claims, with directions for expeditious disposal.

For AY 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the Tribunal held that while Section 11 exemption was not applicable due to pending assessment proceedings, the income should be assessed on commercial principles, allowing deductions for expenses. For AY 2021-2022, the Tribunal allowed Section 11 exemption as assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice vitiates the assessment proceedings. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) pending the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 271AAC(1) is leviable only against additions made in assessment proceedings. Therefore, the outcome of the quantum appeal has a direct bearing on the penalty. Deciding the penalty appeal before the quantum appeal is inappropriate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a liberal and justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the date of incorporation under the Companies Act is the sole criterion for determining an eligible company under section 54GB(6), not the date of commencement of business or MSME registration. Therefore, the assessee's investment did not qualify for exemption.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the rectification petition on a technicality was arbitrary and improper. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the rectification petition on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked valid jurisdiction to assume reassessment proceedings as the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151 of the Act for cases beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, approval from a higher authority (Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent) was required under Section 151. Since the AO obtained approval from a lower authority, the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid, and the reassessment order was bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10-IE is directory, not mandatory. Since the assessee filed the form before the assessment order was passed, the benefit of the new tax regime should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the returned income and assessed income are identical, as there is no tax sought to be evaded. The machinery provisions for penalty become unworkable in such cases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's bona fide reasons and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The penalty appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum proceedings are finalized, as the foundation for the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry regarding the nature of capital gains and the date of acquisition, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was justified.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee showed agricultural land ownership, evidence of accumulated savings was lacking. For loan repayments, PAN details were provided but not examined, and affidavits were filed later. Both issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition must be allowed while computing capital gains. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for recomputation of capital gains after considering the cost of acquisition and other admissible deductions.

The Tribunal held that the condition of filing a return of income for claiming exemption under section 10(23C) became mandatory only from AY 2023-24. Therefore, denial of exemption for non-filing of return for AY 2016-17 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as it fell within the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption, determining the tax payable or refundable accordingly.

The ITAT held that once the reassessment order was set aside by the High Court, nothing survived for adjudication before the CIT(A). The pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not eclipse the binding effect of the High Court's judgment unless a stay is granted.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) order was correct based on the law then prevailing, the subsequent retrospective insertion of Section 147A validated the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that when the CIT(A) dismisses an appeal on limitation but also adjudicates on merits, it implies condonation of the delay. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the returned income was accepted without additions and substantial tax was already paid via TDS, there was no intention to conceal or evade tax. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the penalty appeals before the outcome of the pending quantum appeal. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing in one of the penalty appeals.

The Tribunal held that if the actual escaped income is below Rs. 50 lakhs, a notice issued after three years from the end of the assessment year is barred by limitation. The reassessment notice and order were quashed as invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as the period of six years from the end of the assessment year had expired. Consequently, the reassessment order was vitiated and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption, determining the tax payable or refundable accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption, determining the tax payable or refundable accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the advance received under the JDA was a refundable caution deposit and was duly recorded in the books of the associated company. Furthermore, the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to make a fresh addition without a show-cause notice, as it was beyond the scope of the original assessment.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct a proper inquiry into the existence and genuineness of the sale agreement, especially given the conflicting stands of the assessee and the buyer. The matter was therefore remanded to the AO for a fresh inquiry.

The Tribunal held that a belated return filed in response to a Section 148 notice is a valid return, and the AO is obligated to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before completing the assessment. Non-issuance of this notice renders the reassessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by BSNL employees under the VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption, determining the tax payable or refundable accordingly.

The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation at 60% on SAP License and UPS systems. Regarding set-top boxes, it set aside the disallowance of depreciation and directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim of not claiming depreciation on additions made during the year.

For AY 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, the Tribunal held that while Section 11 exemption was not applicable due to pending assessment proceedings, the income should be assessed on commercial principles, allowing deductions for expenses. For AY 2021-2022, the Tribunal allowed Section 11 exemption as assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000, and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal ground regarding the validity of the assessment order and remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a mandatory Section 143(2) notice vitiates the assessment proceedings. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) pending the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption.

The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claims and allow the exemption.