ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2026

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.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the second appellate authority wrongly assumed jurisdiction as the first appellate authority had already disposed of the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second appellate authority was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid assumption of jurisdiction because the AO failed to obtain the necessary approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee before remanding the matter to the AO. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the specific grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 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.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of these legal issues.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee society were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the bona fide reasons presented by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of excess cash, finding the assessee's explanation unconvincing. However, regarding the excess stock, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission about normal process loss and wastage, remanding the issue for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made for want of supporting evidence. Considering the assessee's status and the submission of voluminous additional evidence, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the taxability of capital gains arising from the property transfer, stating that a registered sale deed implies a transfer for consideration. However, the computation of capital gains was set aside due to an unexplained cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal held that the gift from the mother was satisfactorily explained, evidenced by the donor's confirmation and bank statements showing sufficient funds. The addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that an assessee cannot convert reassessment proceedings into an appeal or revision to seek relief on issues already concluded in the original assessment. The jurisdiction in reassessment is limited to escaped income and does not allow for reconsideration of concluded matters.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the Assessing Officer failing to obtain approval from the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the bona fide reasons presented by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits. The Tribunal also noted that the AO made an addition under Section 69 treating land allotment as unexplained investment, which the assessee claims was compensation for ancestral land.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide the necessary reconciliation between the TDS claimed and the income offered to tax, which is a statutory requirement. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) did not properly discuss the affidavit and medical evidence submitted for the delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the condonation petition.

The Tribunal found that the information from the AMC suggesting the assessee was not registered likely reflected the status at the time of inquiry, not the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.09.2023, was liable to be quashed. For Assessment Year 2018-19, where the notice under Section 148 was issued on 25.04.2022 (beyond three years from the end of the assessment year), the AO was statutorily obligated to obtain approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, or Chief Commissioner or Director General, as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. However, the AO had obtained approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, an authority not vested with jurisdiction under Section 151. Therefore, the assessment was framed without a valid assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 270A, which was based on the invalid assessment order, was also quashed. The Tribunal refrained from dealing with other contentions as the assessment itself was quashed. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to communication errors by the CIT(A)'s office. However, it upheld the penalty under section 271B, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay in audit report filing to be unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO's remand report, which verified the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits as satisfactory, could not be disregarded by the First Appellate Authority without pointing out specific defects. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.09.2023, was liable to be quashed. For Assessment Year 2018-19, where the notice under Section 148 was issued on 25.04.2022 (beyond three years from the end of the assessment year), the AO was statutorily obligated to obtain approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, or Chief Commissioner or Director General, as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. However, the AO had obtained approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, an authority not vested with jurisdiction under Section 151. Therefore, the assessment was framed without a valid assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 270A, which was based on the invalid assessment order, was also quashed. The Tribunal refrained from dealing with other contentions as the assessment itself was quashed. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to communication errors by the CIT(A)'s office. However, it upheld the penalty under section 271B, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay in audit report filing to be unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal noted that the additions were made for want of supporting evidence. Considering the assessee's status and the submission of voluminous additional evidence, the Tribunal decided to grant another opportunity for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the bona fide reasons presented by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay of 197 days in filing the appeal, adopting a liberal approach. However, on merits, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings and upheld the addition made under Section 69A for the unexplained cash loan and the rejection of the agricultural income claim, as the assessee failed to substantiate her claims.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties. Since the Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal, the assessee's request was accepted.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a justice-oriented approach and the potential for gross injustice if the appeals were not heard on merits. The quantum and penalty appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a justice-oriented approach and the potential for gross injustice if the appeals were not heard on merits. The quantum and penalty appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a justice-oriented approach and the potential for gross injustice if the appeals were not heard on merits. The quantum and penalty appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is akin to retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exemption claimed by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is akin to retrenchment compensation and is fully exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exemption claimed by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO 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 and the penalty order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation as per the amended provisions of Section 148A read with Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment orders were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the orders giving effect to the previous CIT(A) order would not survive as the ITAT had already deleted the additions. Therefore, these orders were set aside, and the assessee's appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.

The Tribunal held that compensation received by BSNL employees under VRS-2019 is akin to retrenchment compensation and eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and determine the tax payable or refundable.