ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without correlating the reply filed in a related appeal. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had partly complied and that the ld.CIT(E) sought additional information. In the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal remitted the issue of regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) back to the ld.CIT(E). The ld.CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce necessary evidence, and the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No.10B is a directory, not mandatory, requirement. Citing precedents, it was decided that the benefit of sections 11 and 12 should not be denied solely due to the delayed furnishing of Form No.10B, especially when filed during appeal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without correlating the reply filed in a related appeal. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters of quantum addition and penalty were remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, with a direction to afford the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with the notices and provide required documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had made compliance with the initial notice but faced difficulties in responding to a subsequent notice due to time constraints. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had partly complied and that the ld.CIT(E) sought additional information. In the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal remitted the issue of regular registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) back to the ld.CIT(E). The ld.CIT(E) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to adduce necessary evidence, and the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 69A was not sustainable. Following various judicial precedents, it was observed that the source of cash was explained through sales, and the books of accounts were duly maintained and audited.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters of quantum addition and penalty were remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, with a direction to afford the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by filing documentary evidence. However, it was also noted that these evidences were not verified by the lower authorities.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, noting no objection from the Department. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty granted to the assessee to reinstitute it if the dispute is not ultimately settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme-2024.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the AO's failure to conduct proper inquiries and provide adequate opportunity for cross-examination, especially given the time constraints. The PCIT's order to set aside the reassessment was confirmed.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal. It estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 16,00,000/- based on earlier years and a High Court decision, directing the AO to restrict the addition to Rs. 5,56,000/-. Ground 2 was dismissed as the assessee admitted no books were maintained for agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v), which allows disallowance of Section 80P deduction for late returns, is prospective from AY 2021-22. Therefore, for AY 2018-19, the CPC had no power to make such an adjustment under Section 143(1)(a). The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s finding and directed the AO to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CPC was not justified in disallowing the deduction u/s 80P as the relevant amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act, which grants power to disallow such deductions, was prospective and effective from 01.04.2021, while the assessment year in question was 2019-20.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. It set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and directed the Ld. AO to allow the claim of the assessee by taking into consideration Form 10IE already available on record. The Tribunal reasoned that the claim of benefit under Section 115BAC is in continuity from the preceding AY. Citing the decisions in Akshay Devendra Birari Vs. DCIT and Indo British Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Tribunal held that once an option under Section 115BAC is exercised, it applies to subsequent assessment years and cannot be withdrawn. The requirement of filing Form 10IE in subsequent years becomes irrelevant if the option has already been exercised and accepted in a prior year. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's Form 10IE for AY 2022-23 was already on record, and the technical inability to re-file it for AY 2023-24 should not disentitle the assessee to the benefit. The issue of whether Form 10IE is mandatory or directory was also addressed by relying on precedents that suggest it is directory.

The Tribunal held that goodwill is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32(1) of the Act, and the principle of ejusdem generis applies. The Tribunal noted that the AO had made a factual finding that no amount was paid for goodwill, while the CIT(A) found that the assessee acquired a capital right in the form of goodwill due to amalgamation, increasing its market worth. This factual finding was upheld. The Tribunal found that the claim for depreciation on goodwill is supported by Supreme Court decisions in CIT v. Smifs Securities Limited and Bombay High Court in Chowgule & Company Private Ltd. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the depreciation on goodwill. Regarding brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the allowance after due verification, as the assessee had disclosed these in its ITR and tax audit report. For advance tax and TDS credit, the Tribunal relied on the decision in Modipon Ltd. and directed the AO to grant the credit after due verification, as the income was assessed on a consolidated basis. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a non-resident during the relevant period, and the impugned income did not accrue or arise in India. It was an admitted fact that the entire payment for the property was made through a Standard Chartered Bank NRE Account, and the deposits in this account originated from inward remittances from Malaysia. The Tribunal noted that the appointment letters clearly demonstrated the assessee was working outside India and earning salary income there. The DRP's confirmation of the addition solely on the basis of the non-submission of a Malaysian bank account copy was disagreed with, as other evidence like appointment orders, passports, and the NRE account statement clearly indicated the source of funds was outside India and constituted salary income. Respectfully following judicial precedents, the Tribunal opined that the AO erred in making the addition. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,09,78,640/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that it was not possible to prove statements recorded during the survey without copies of impounded papers and documents. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on the grounds of non-cooperation without considering the issue of non-provision of impounded material. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could have responded based on available material, but the lack of impounded documents was a significant impediment. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing and copies of impounded material. The assessee was directed to cooperate and produce relevant documents without seeking adjournments. All other grounds were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and granted the assessee an opportunity to file evidences before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering any remand report for additional evidences.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes concerning the addition for deemed dividend. It dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding agricultural income and other expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s relief. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA was denied due to non-furnishing of Form 10CCB and agreements, but the assessee claimed these were filed and available in records.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that it was not possible to prove statements recorded during the survey without copies of impounded papers and documents. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on the grounds of non-cooperation without considering the issue of non-provision of impounded material. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee could have responded based on available material, but the lack of impounded documents was a significant impediment. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing and copies of impounded material. The assessee was directed to cooperate and produce relevant documents without seeking adjournments. All other grounds were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and granted the assessee an opportunity to file evidences before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering any remand report for additional evidences.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that both the assessment order and the impugned order were passed ex-parte and notices were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It 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) of the Act, relying on previous judgments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to provide necessary details and decide the case on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was visited with a penalty and had filed an appeal. Considering the circumstances and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of penalty to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, following Supreme Court decisions on condonation of delay, held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision after proper verification.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes concerning the addition for deemed dividend. It dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding agricultural income and other expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s relief. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA was denied due to non-furnishing of Form 10CCB and agreements, but the assessee claimed these were filed and available in records.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had filed some documents with the CIT(A) but others remained unfiled. Considering the interest of natural justice and the Ld. Departmental Representative's no-objection, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Ld. CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide the appellant with a fresh opportunity to submit all necessary documents, including those already filed with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee had shown reasonable cause. It was held that filing the audit report is a procedural requirement and the benefit of Section 11 should not be denied for a delay in furnishing Form No.10B, especially when the corrected form was filed later.

The Tribunal noted that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the appellant regarding the loan issue. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of regular registration and approval back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the CIT(A) did not provide a fair opportunity for hearing, and therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions made by the AO for want of sufficient documentary evidence and had not adjudicated the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv), citing a lack of submissions. However, the Tribunal found from the record that the assessee had indeed filed written submissions dated 01.06.2023 along with supporting documentary evidence before the CIT(A), and had also filed an application for the additional ground along with a copy of the approval order under Section 10(23C)(iv). The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s finding that no submissions were filed for the additional ground was factually incorrect. Considering the totality of the facts, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the impugned issues, including the additional ground, back to his file. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate these issues afresh on merits, taking into consideration the written submissions and documentary evidence already on record, and any other details required, after affording due opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to provide requisite support without seeking adjournments unless for reasonable cause. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits from relatives and friends, confirming the source of the cash deposits. The AO failed to rebut the evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that proper opportunity of hearing was not given to the appellant regarding the loan issue. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue of regular registration and approval back to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an opportunity of personal hearing, considering the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned both delays, finding 'reasonable cause'. It held that the filing of Form No.67 is directory and not mandatory, thus the FTC claim cannot be denied merely due to belated filing. The issue was remitted back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.