ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2026

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits and without providing independent reasoning. The CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to dispose of appeals in writing with reasons.

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 under section 148 was barred by limitation as per the 'first proviso' to section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order passed based on this invalid notice was quashed.

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 appeal, finding the reasons for delay to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it. For AY 2021-2022, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. For AY 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the appeals were also set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the AY 2021-2022 matter.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's reasons for delay to be genuine. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and restored the issues to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The delay due to pursuing alternative remedies could be considered a sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of ignorance of law and difficult market conditions did not constitute a reasonable cause for violating Section 269SS. The penalty under Section 271D was therefore confirmed.

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 upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide cogent documentary evidence to support the claimed business income and explain the credits in his bank account.

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 confirmed the addition of ₹15,50,000/- from Shri V. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy due to lack of evidence. The addition of ₹12,50,000/- from Shri A. Sudhakar Reddy was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of law is not a sufficient cause for condoning delay. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds without a satisfactory explanation, especially when negligence and lack of diligence are evident.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence prima facie showed the assessee's bank account was misused. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and inquiry.

The Tribunal held that while beneficiaries of a determinate trust can be assessed directly, the trust's income or loss must first be determined and verified in accordance with the Act. Since the KSN Trust had not filed a return and its losses were unverified, the assessee's claim could not be accepted.

The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the cash deposits as part of the business turnover disclosed by the assessee under section 44AD, no separate addition under section 69A could be made for the same amount, as it would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it. For AY 2021-2022, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. For AY 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the appeals were also set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the AY 2021-2022 matter.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it. For AY 2021-2022, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. For AY 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the appeals were also set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the AY 2021-2022 matter.

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 admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including stock registers and sale invoices, as it was crucial for adjudicating the issue. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be acceptable given the circumstances. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum assessment was remanded, making the penalty appeals premature.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed period of six years. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The limitation period for imposing penalty is six months from the end of the month in which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the ACIT for initiation of penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's own findings during remand proceedings indicated a nexus between the loan and property purchase, and that interest on housing loans can be claimed on an accrual basis. Therefore, a partial deduction for interest was allowed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on merits and without providing independent reasoning. The CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to dispose of appeals in writing with reasons.

The Tribunal held that the penalty is leviable only against additions made in assessment proceedings, thus the quantum appeal's outcome has a direct bearing on the penalty. The CIT(A) should have waited for the quantum appeal's decision before adjudicating the penalty appeal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a reply and substantial documentary evidence, which the CIT(A) failed to consider. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. It granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present supporting evidence and explanations before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that although the assessee submitted documents late, they were available to the CIT(A) before the appeal was decided. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have considered these documents instead of dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that although the assessee submitted documents late, they were available to the CIT(A) before the appeal was decided. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have considered these documents instead of dismissing the appeal.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide. The Tribunal held that since the assessment proceedings were set aside by the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity, the penalty for non-compliance with notices cannot be sustained at this stage.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be acceptable given the circumstances. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum assessment was remanded, making the penalty appeals premature.

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.