ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to give the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate their case, considering the possibility of notices being sent to an old email address.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully substantiate all expenses, the ad-hoc disallowances made by the AO and restricted by the CIT(A) were on the higher side. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowances to 10% of the total expenses on each head.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and comply with future notices without adjournment.

The Tribunal held that the erroneous selection of a section code by the assessee is not fatal and should not disentitle them from their rightful claim. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside to grant the assessee an opportunity to rectify the application and be heard.

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

The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a section code/clause is not fatal and cannot disentitle the assessee to its claim. The Tribunal relied on various precedents where similar mistakes were treated leniently. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the erroneous selection of a section code is not a fatal mistake and should not disentitle the assessee to its rightful claim. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeals on merit and had dismissed them for non-prosecution, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeals were restored to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to submit all relevant documents and evidence to substantiate its case, after which the CIT(E) is to decide the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a section code/clause is not fatal and should not disentitle the assessee from their claim. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the application and decide the matter afresh.

The Tribunal held that Cooperative Banks are fundamentally Cooperative Societies, and interest income earned from their deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on a catena of its own decisions.

The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a section code/clause in the application, while an error, is not fatal to the assessee's claim. The Tribunal followed previous decisions which allowed similar cases to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act for not going into the merits of the case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the return was filed beyond the due date specified under Section 139(1) of the Act, Section 80AC was rightly invoked to disallow the deduction claimed under Chapter VIA. It further noted that any condonation for delay in filing the return would require an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which was not filed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by holding that the assessee had reasonable cause and no intention to delay. The Tribunal further held that the CPC had exceeded its jurisdiction in making the prima facie adjustment denying deduction under Section 80P, as the powers for such disallowance due to delayed return filing were granted to the CPC only from April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's orders were not decided on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to give the assessee one last opportunity to present their case and decide the appeals by passing a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that while non-compliance occurred, it may have been due to unavoidable circumstances. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee to submit details and for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, 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 order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC in the name of a deceased assessee without impleading the legal heir was improper. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision after hearing the legal heir.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of Section 80P(2)(d) deduction on interest income from Cooperative Banks to the Assessing Officer for verification, acknowledging its eligibility based on precedents. For the PF/ESI disallowance, it held that employer's contributions, though delayed, would not affect total income eligible for Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction, but employee's contributions deposited late would be added back. This issue was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the Supreme Court's emphasis on substantial justice over technicality and the assessee's status as a senior citizen suffering from illness. The CIT(A)'s orders were dismissed for want of prosecution, not on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without adjudicating on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merits, after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the assessee's medical condition and senior citizen status, and referring to Supreme Court judgments on substantial justice over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the TPO in the name of a non-existent entity is a nullity. Consequently, any adjustment proposed based on such an order cannot be sustained. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by the TPO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions for deduction u/s.80P. The failure to e-verify the return within the initial period was a technical glitch, and subsequent e-verification with relaxation provided by CBDT circular was accepted. The provisions of section 80A(5) were considered, and it was found that the assessee had made a valid claim in the return filed in response to the notice.

The Tribunal observed that no fair opportunity of hearing was granted to the assessee by the lower authorities. Therefore, to provide one more opportunity and in the larger interest of justice, the issues were remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on its merits, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal, following various judicial precedents including decisions from the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and Kerala, and the Supreme Court, held that the interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits in permitted banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The character of the income does not change, and Section 80P(4) is not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the use of the word 'Penalty' in the order under Section 201(1) was a typographical error, as confirmed by the show-cause notice and the demand notice, which clearly indicated 'Tax and Interest'. The Tribunal further noted that the proviso to Section 201 places the onus on the assessee to furnish a certificate from a Chartered Accountant if they claim no tax was deductible. Since no such certificate was filed and the assessee's oral assurance lacked evidentiary value, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

Following judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Pr.CIT Vs. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd., the Tribunal held that the assessee, being a credit society and not a co-operative bank, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act on the interest earned. The Tribunal emphasized that the character of income does not change merely because surplus funds are deposited in permitted banks, and such income remains attributable to the main business for Section 80P purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments on substantial justice and the assessee's personal circumstances. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits as required by Section 250(6).

The Tribunal held that the interest earned by the assessee on deposits made from its surplus funds in permitted banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act. Following judicial precedents, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal remanded the disallowance of interest on housing loan under Section 24(b), agricultural income, and Chapter VI-A deductions back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish requisite evidence. For the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 57(iii), the Tribunal, relying on various High Court and Supreme Court decisions, held that the purpose of incurring the expenditure to earn income is sufficient for deduction, not the actual earning of income. Thus, the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 57(iii) was set aside and directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's medical condition and senior citizen status, and the principle of substantial justice. However, it noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding them on merit.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was a non-speaking order on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act, as it dismissed the appeal on a technical ground without adjudicating the substantive issue raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's medical condition and the principle of substantial justice. However, since the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit with a cost levied on the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the principles of substantial justice and the assessee's circumstances. However, it was noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution without deciding on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, with a cost imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause due to the medical condition of the assessee's representative and technical issues with e-filing. The Tribunal found that the adhoc disallowance by the AO was not sustainable as the assessee regularly made URD purchases, maintained quantitative records, and the AO only conducted a test-check verification. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was passed without adjudicating on merits and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal, relying on recent Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Pr.CIT Vs. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Pathpedi Ltd. and Kerala High Court's decision in Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., held that co-operative credit societies are entitled to the Section 80P(2) deduction. It clarified that interest earned from deposits in permitted banks retains its character as profits and gains attributable to the main business and is thus eligible for the deduction.