ITAT Pune Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, directing the assessee to be given one final opportunity to submit requisite details regarding the source of cash deposits and other credit entries. The AO is to decide the issue afresh on merits.

The Tribunal held that it was proper to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing requisite details. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking any adjournment.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The CIT(E) is to decide the application afresh after considering the documents and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, stating that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal found it proper to restore both the issues of Section 12A registration and Section 80G approval to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details, failing which the CIT(Exemption) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked for sums credited in the books of the assessee for the relevant previous year. Since the Rs. 10,00,000/- loan was credited in the books in FY 2011-12 and appeared as an opening balance on 01.04.2015, it was not credited in the previous year for AY 2016-17. Therefore, the AO had no jurisdiction to invoke Section 68 for that assessment year.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, remitting the issues back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard, provided proper contact details, and warned against unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee offered the additional income and that the AO's basis for additions required further verification, especially regarding the claim that the effect of the offered income was nullified. Considering the need for verification and the assessee's contention that the income was business income not subject to Section 115BBE, both the quantum appeal (Section 69C addition and GP difference) and the rectification appeal (Section 154 and Section 115BBE) were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee due opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without providing a hearing or condoning the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail, and the delay was not malafide. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 223 days and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, but only after the pending quantum appeal is disposed of.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of the Karta were quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal and followed by the CIT(A), the basis for the protective additions and subsequent penalties ceased to exist.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of the Karta were quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal and followed by the CIT(A), the basis for the protective additions and subsequent penalties ceased to exist.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not argued the merits of the case but prayed for an opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Taking a liberal approach due to the introduction of new technological procedures in faceless assessments and appeals, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act. They affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the issue was res integra and relying on previous judgments.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the disallowance. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Checkmate Services Private Limited, the Tribunal held that employee contributions to Provident Fund and ESI, if deposited after the due date prescribed by the relevant acts, are liable for disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) and treated as income under Section 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they were dismissed as 'withdrawn' since the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and there was no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal had become infructuous due to the subsequent order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Since there was no objection from the assessee's counsel, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee would be free to recall the order if their application under the scheme was rejected by the revenue.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of a communication gap leading to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption), directing it to provide the assessee one final opportunity to submit the necessary details and substantiate its case.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal, noting no objection from the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) on interest earned from fixed deposits with nationalized banks, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision on an identical issue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Departmental Representative had no objection. It was clarified that if the Vivad Se Vishwas application is rejected, the assessee can seek recalling of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that notices were sent to a former consultant, causing non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption), granting one final opportunity for the assessee to submit the requisite details. The assessee is directed to comply without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(Exemption) may pass an appropriate order.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of the Karta were quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal and followed by the CIT(A), the basis for the protective additions and subsequent penalties ceased to exist.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 286 days in filing the appeal after finding a 'reasonable cause' presented by the assessee. It remitted the issues on merit back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding. The assessee was directed to ensure proper communication and vigilance for future proceedings.

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs. CIT*, observed that the assessee claimed substantial payments were made before statutory due dates. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the details and pass an appropriate order after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, thereby allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs. CIT*, observed that the assessee claimed substantial payments were made before statutory due dates. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the details and pass an appropriate order after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, thereby allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as they were dismissed as 'withdrawn' since the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and there was no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that notices were sent to a former consultant, causing non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption), granting one final opportunity for the assessee to submit the requisite details. The assessee is directed to comply without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(Exemption) may pass an appropriate order.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with other cooperative societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act. They affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating the issue was res integra and relying on previous judgments.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of a communication gap leading to non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(Exemption), directing it to provide the assessee one final opportunity to submit the necessary details and substantiate its case.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not make submissions before the CIT(A) despite several opportunities. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore both matters to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one final opportunity to present its case and requisite details, after which the CIT(A) is to decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision in *Checkmate Services (P) Ltd vs. CIT*, observed that the assessee claimed substantial payments were made before statutory due dates. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the details and pass an appropriate order after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, thereby allowing the appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the addition of Rs. 2.5 crores was still pending before the CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, the penalty issue under Section 271(1)(c) was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to be decided after the finalization of the quantum appeal, providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on patent drafting and translation expenses for software development are revenue expenditures. The disallowance under Section 14A was limited to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not make submissions before the CIT(A) despite several opportunities. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore both matters to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee one final opportunity to present its case and requisite details, after which the CIT(A) is to decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee offered the additional income and that the AO's basis for additions required further verification, especially regarding the claim that the effect of the offered income was nullified. Considering the need for verification and the assessee's contention that the income was business income not subject to Section 115BBE, both the quantum appeal (Section 69C addition and GP difference) and the rectification appeal (Section 154 and Section 115BBE) were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee due opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that for the ends of justice, the issues of agricultural income and non-deduction of TDS on unsecured loans should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to grant a final opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities (CIT(A) and Tribunal) possess the jurisdiction to entertain new claims not made in original or revised returns, thereby distinguishing their powers from that of the Assessing Officer as outlined in Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the Section 11(1A) claim solely on procedural grounds and consequently, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on its merits after providing the assessee due opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that taxing the profit again in the assessee's hands would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal noted that the alleged sum had already been offered to tax by different assessees at different times.

The Tribunal held that the stamp duty value on the date of the original agreement should be considered, as per the provisos to Section 56(2)(vii)(b), especially since part consideration was paid on the agreement date. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the penalty appeal ex-parte before the related quantum appeal was adjudicated. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter and remanded it back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the present penalty appeal afresh only after the disposal of the quantum appeal, providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining prior permission. Therefore, the addition made under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It allowed the deduction of Rs. 29,96,097/- under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from cooperative banks. For the deduction of Rs. 2,87,781/- under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the substantive issues regarding additions/disallowance under Section 80P to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, in light of the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT (Central) vs. Premkumar Arjunda. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and decide the issue afresh. The assessee was directed to submit details without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition for the capital account difference, as the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and the distinction between personal and business capital was valid. The Tribunal also found that the reclassification of the loan was a mere change in nomenclature and not a justification for addition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had established a nexus between the borrowed amount and the lent amount on which interest was paid and earned. The Tribunal also noted that in a subsequent assessment year, a similar claim for deduction under Section 57 was allowed. Therefore, the disallowance by the lower authorities was not justified.

The Tribunal restored both the applications for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted one final opportunity to submit the necessary details to the CIT(Exemption)'s satisfaction, failing which the CIT(Exemption) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law.

The Tribunal restored both the applications for registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted one final opportunity to submit the necessary details to the CIT(Exemption)'s satisfaction, failing which the CIT(Exemption) is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law.