ITAT Pune Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal found force in the assessee's argument regarding technical difficulties faced by office bearers. It held that the dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay was unjustified and caused hardship. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits and restoring the issue to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case, with a direction to decide the issue based on facts and law.

The Tribunal, considering a similar order for a related appeal (ITA 2090/Pun/2024) where the matter was set aside for denovo adjudication, decided to remit the present issue of 80G(5) approval back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the failure of their tax consultant. It condoned the 202-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without properly considering the merits of the case and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay were understandable given its nature as a small society with limited technical capacity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order, directing it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing a final opportunity for the assessee to substantiate their case. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue on merit after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not suffer due to the failure of their tax consultant. Condoning the delay of 202 days, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while interest income from cooperative banks might not be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if attributed to non-members, interest income earned from cooperative societies and other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), especially when it furthers the cooperative movement. Income from scheduled banks and cooperative banks is to be taxed under Section 56.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the entities related to its claims and expenditures. Consequently, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision and a CBDT circular, held that the incorrect mention of the section code is a curable defect. The order of the CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption), granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit the required details to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to comply without adjournment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering that the assessee claims an opportunity of being heard was not adequately granted, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay of 24 days and without deciding the case on merits. Considering the prevailing circumstances and the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of CIT(A)/NFAC.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee argued Section 56(2)(x) is applicable to purchasers and not sellers. Both parties agreed to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Finding that the appeal was not decided on merits before the CIT(A)/NFAC, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay and providing an opportunity of hearing, considering the assessee's explanation for the initial delay.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on information received from the DDIT (Inv.) Wing and lacked independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on 'borrowed satisfaction' and were therefore invalid. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings were quashed, and the grounds challenging the addition on merit were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and deposited the requisite challan. Since no dispute remained, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decided the issue after giving due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing requisite details and documents.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The assessee was directed to file submissions without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to submit details and clarifications without seeking any adjournment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals, noting no objection from the Department's representative.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions and those of other Co-ordinate Benches.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 addresses difficulties, including filing under wrong section codes, and provides relief. Relying on its own previous decisions where such errors were considered curable technical mistakes, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's rejection order. The case was remanded to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication, treating the application as filed under the correct section and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals, as there was no objection from the Revenue. Consequently, all 8 appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decisions and allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal found that this issue was covered by several decisions of its coordinate benches.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw all 8 appeals as they were dismissed as 'withdrawn' since the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following precedents from coordinate benches. The decision of the Karnataka High Court was distinguished.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee is directed to provide all requisite details without seeking adjournments.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, noting no objection from the Departmental Representative, allowed the assessee's request. All 8 appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as "withdrawn" due to their participation in the DTVSVS Scheme, 2024.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals after noting no objection from the DR. Consequently, all 8 appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, following its own co-ordinate benches and previous decisions, held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The assessee's ground of appeal challenging the disallowance was allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the 8 appeals. Consequently, all 8 appeals were dismissed as "withdrawn".

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw all 8 appeals, as there was no objection from the Revenue. Consequently, all appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), following previous decisions of the Tribunal. The disallowance of this deduction by the Assessing Officer was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be granted one final opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate the case with requisite details. The assessee is directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the 8 appeals. The appeals were dismissed as 'withdrawn' due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without granting proper opportunity and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.