ITAT Pune Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal condoned the 382-day delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and substantial justice. The issues raised in the appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all required evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the cash deposits of Rs. 5,56,800/- as the cash book produced was self-generated and unreliable. The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had claimed Rs. 8,87,962/- as exempt income under section 10(2A) of the Act, representing profit from firms. However, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee had declared the share in profit as 'Zero (0)' in the relevant schedule of the Income Tax Return. The Tribunal, in its findings and analysis, stated that it had heard both parties and perused the record. While the grounds of appeal were presented, the detailed reasoning and the final decision on the merits of the claim under section 10(2A) are not fully elaborated in the provided excerpt. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural ground regarding the amendment of appeal grounds but did not explicitly rule on it in the provided text. The operative directions or the final outcome of the appeal are not discernible from the given text.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits. It reasoned that the assessment order u/s 143(3) supersedes the intimation order u/s 143(1), and the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural defect that should not deny exemption. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the omission in Section 11(2)(c) was a substantive amendment and not retrospective. Therefore, the accumulated funds from FY 2016-17 could be applied within the extended period, making the disallowance by the CPC incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B is mandatory and automatic. Following Supreme Court judgments, it ruled that rectification under section 154 for such mandatory interest is permissible, even if not explicitly mentioned in the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits. It reasoned that the assessment order u/s 143(3) supersedes the intimation order u/s 143(1), and the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural defect that should not deny exemption. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not pass a reasoned order and failed to consider the material submitted by the appellant. The rejection of the applications violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not pass a reasoned order and failed to consider the material submitted by the appellant. The rejection of the applications violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the omission in Section 11(2)(c) was a substantive amendment and not retrospective. Therefore, the accumulated funds from FY 2016-17 could be applied within the extended period, making the disallowance by the CPC incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without delving into the merits of the case, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal, considering the larger interest of justice and fairness, decided to afford the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal afforded one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide the appeal on merits, as per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court ruling. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that Rs.1,99,375 of the credit card payments were sufficiently explained by the assessee's salary income. However, the issue of Rs.7,82,500 paid by the assessee's brother was restored to the AO for verification, as these new facts were not presented before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide the appeal on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The CIT(A) order was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, agreeing that the AO's allowance of the 'cost of improvement' without adequate inquiry was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The assessee's arguments regarding Vivad se Vishwas and the scope of limited scrutiny were rejected.

The Tribunal held that a consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years vitiates the assessment proceedings. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of a belated return and non-payment of advance tax, especially without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the documents and submissions filed by the assessee, which is against the principles of natural justice and judicial precedents. The CIT(A) has a duty to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a co-owner and her share of investment was Rs. 74,51,050/-. The assessee had explained the sources for her share, including loan funds and her husband's contribution. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the agreement for sale was executed on March 31, 2017, which falls in the Financial Year 2016-17, and the corresponding Assessment Year is 2017-18. Section 56(2)(x) was introduced w.e.f. April 1, 2017. Therefore, the addition made by the AO in Assessment Year 2018-19 was not sustainable and is void ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that once an amount is determined and paid under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, the Assessing Officer cannot pass a rectification order under Section 154 as the scheme provides finality. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society on its deposits, which are derived from its primary business of providing credit facilities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal followed various High Court and Supreme Court decisions that distinguished the Totagar's case based on the nature of the society's activities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, as the order under Section 154 was maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made on the basis of a contingent liability disclosed only for informational purposes and not claimed as an expense or liability. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the alternate adjustment made for Software development services was not justified as the assessee had not disputed the expense allocation and the profit margin fell within the comparable range. For Staff Augmentation services, the Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate the ALP using only two specific comparables.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the original assessment under section 143(3)/153A had already considered the impugned transaction. In the absence of fresh tangible material, reopening for the same transaction was invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days, accepting the reasons provided as reasonable and not intentional. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is granted a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the original assessment under section 143(3)/153A had already considered the impugned transaction. In the absence of fresh tangible material, reopening for the same transaction was invalid.

The CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding the notice issued under Section 148 to be invalid. The tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the reopening was based on a change of opinion and lacked fresh tangible material.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days, accepting the reasons provided as reasonable and not intentional. The appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is granted a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte as the assessee failed to furnish necessary details. Considering this, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing an opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that penal interest paid for overdrawing a cash credit facility is an allowable business expense under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It is not an offence or prohibited by law, thus not disallowable under Section 37(1) with Explanation 1.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were not in accordance with law and were liable to be quashed. It was also held that the legal heir could not be denied the status of a legal representative, and the appeal was maintainable even in the absence of other legal heirs.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the original assessment under section 143(3)/153A had already considered the impugned transaction. In the absence of fresh tangible material, reopening for the same transaction was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the original assessment under section 143(3)/153A had already considered the impugned transaction. In the absence of fresh tangible material, reopening for the same transaction was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the original assessment under section 143(3)/153A had already considered the impugned transaction. In the absence of fresh tangible material, reopening for the same transaction was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the original assessment under section 143(3)/153A had already considered the impugned transaction. In the absence of fresh tangible material, reopening for the same transaction was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law as the original assessment under section 143(3)/153A had already considered the impugned transaction. In the absence of fresh tangible material, reopening for the same transaction was invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), referencing Supreme Court judgments on condoning delays. It noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC should adopt a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had condoned the delay in filing Form 10B. Since this order was not available to the AO at the time of passing the assessment order, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to consider the condonation order and provide the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary details.

The Tribunal held that an order passed by the Addl./Joint CIT(A)-12, Delhi, under the Faceless Regime, was bad in law because a prior appeal concerning the same assessment order had already been decided. It was determined that there cannot be two orders of the CIT(A) under Section 250 against the same assessment order for an Assessment Year.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to furnish sufficient details before the lower authorities to prove the land was agricultural. However, since all details are now provided in the paper book, the issue deserves to be restored to the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment without dealing with the merits of the case, as the assessment was framed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B and not section 144. The CIT(A) also failed to follow the procedure under section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the stamp duty and registration expenses were genuinely incurred and properly reflected in the assessee's Profit and Loss Account and income tax return under the head "Duties and Taxes." It ruled that the disallowance was not justified, setting aside the CIT(A)'s finding.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), referencing Supreme Court judgments on condoning delays. It noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC should adopt a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the CIT(A) had already restored the issue of Foreign Tax Credit to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, acknowledged that the matter was restored to the AO for proper examination of exemption claims under the India-UAE DTAA and TDS credit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), referencing Supreme Court judgments on condoning delays. It noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC should adopt a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), referencing Supreme Court judgments on condoning delays. It noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC should adopt a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), referencing Supreme Court judgments on condoning delays. It noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC should adopt a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions on extension of limitation due to the pandemic and the importance of substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits.