ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal noted that the notices for assessment proceedings were sent during the Covid-19 pandemic restriction period. Considering the practical difficulties faced by the assessee, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing and submission of evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by taking a liberal and justice-oriented approach, relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case and that the matter should be remanded back to the Ld. CIT for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to provide all requisite documents.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition leading to the penalty had already been deleted, the penalty itself had no basis to stand. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for ITA No. 2330/PUN/2024. It held that the first application dated 21.09.2023 was a valid application considering a subsequent CBDT circular. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for ITA No. 2330/PUN/2024. It held that the first application dated 21.09.2023 was a valid application considering a subsequent CBDT circular. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued after the new provisions of Section 148A and 148B became effective from 01.04.2021. As the Assessing Officer did not follow the new mandatory procedure, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B is procedural and directory, not mandatory. The delay in filing does not disentitle the assessee to exemption under section 11, especially when the report was available during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the PCIT erred in invoking section 263.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued after the new provisions of Section 148A and 148B became effective from 01.04.2021. As the Assessing Officer did not follow the new mandatory procedure, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid and bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the loan from Kantha H. Arethiya was sufficiently explained and the deletion of the addition by CIT(A) was upheld. For M/s. Krishna Fashion World, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan, reversing the CIT(A)'s order and confirming the addition. For Radiance Finvest Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the amount was likely a capital contribution rather than a loan and set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee for deciding both the registration and approval applications.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 provided an opportunity to reapply. Therefore, the CIT should not have rejected the second application solely based on the prior cancellation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that the husband's business and related transactions were disclosed in his audited accounts and income tax returns. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee for deciding both the registration and approval applications.

The Tribunal found that the CBDT Circular No.7/2024 provided an opportunity to reapply for registration. Therefore, the CIT should not have rejected the second application outright. The case was remanded to the CIT for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of Section 12AB registration was already remanded back to the CIT for reconsideration. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order rejecting the 80G application and remanded the matter back to the CIT for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(E) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing and did not pass a reasoned order, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(E) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing and did not pass a reasoned order, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 146 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided as sufficient and reasonable. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the merits of the case, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was incorrect because the online response filed by the assessee on the hearing date was not considered, possibly due to a technical glitch. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, restoring the issue to the CIT(E) for necessary adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the inadvertent mistake of selecting the wrong section code should not be considered fatal to the application. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to grant the appellant an opportunity to rectify the mistake and decide the case on its merits.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant is a non-profit company established in 2021 with charitable objects. While the CIT(E) rejected the application for not showing expenses, the appellant claimed to have submitted all necessary details. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant is a non-profit company established in 2021 with charitable objects. While the CIT(E) rejected the application for not showing expenses, the appellant claimed to have submitted all necessary details. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal after considering the assessee's affidavit and relevant Supreme Court judgments. The matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh on merits, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and explanations during assessment and appellate proceedings. Despite the assessee filing a detailed paper book before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the ground regarding the quashing of the order under section 143(1)(a) for not providing an opportunity of hearing was dismissed as the assessee failed to fill the columns correctly in the return. On merits, the Tribunal found that there was a mixed accounting of regular business and TDR sale, and hence remitted the matter to the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) for a denovo assessment.