ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal distinguished this from income derived from lending to members, citing High Court precedents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's submissions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the rejection solely based on a technical error in selecting a sub-clause was unjustified, especially when the assessee had filed the correct details and demonstrated bona fide intent. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and restored the issue to the CIT(E)'s file. A final opportunity is granted to the assessee to furnish requisite details and substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized due to the lack of a revision mechanism, especially when the mistake was due to the consultant. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment.

The Tribunal, citing the Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra, held that a CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and lacks the power to dismiss it for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the Supreme Court's decisions and the fact that the assessee was dependent on their Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merit after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without considering the assessee's submissions and judicial precedents. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the Supreme Court's decisions and the fact that the assessee was dependent on their Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merit after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned, considering the Supreme Court's decisions and the fact that the assessee was dependent on their Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merit after affording an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all relevant details, including the difference in values, during the original assessment. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the 10% tolerance margin provided in Section 43CA, being a beneficial provision, should apply retrospectively. As the difference in values was less than 10%, the AO's original order was deemed neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, leading the Tribunal to set aside the PCIT's revisionary order.

The Tribunal held that the right to appeal is a statutory right and must be exercised within the prescribed time limit. Since the assessee failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay and did not appear for hearings, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the medical certificate and the reasons provided. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal held that dividend distribution tax is payable by the domestic company at the rate specified in Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, and not at the rate prescribed in the DTAA, unless the treaty explicitly extends protection to the domestic company.

The Tribunal held that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not impose any bar or limitation on a cooperative society having transactions with nominal members. It further noted that the term 'member' under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act includes nominal members. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, which interpreted 'member' in the context of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the definition in the relevant State Cooperative Societies Act, the Tribunal found that loans given to nominal members would qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Consequently, the disallowance of the entire claim of Rs. 3,67,02,901/- by the AO was deleted. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to verify the details of transactions with members, nominal members (including those who superannuated and those who joined after superannuation) after the assessee furnishes them, possibly with an affidavit. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue for AY 2017-18. For AY 2018-19, the issues were common, and the same findings were applied, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's grounds for that year as well.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that since the details regarding amalgamation were not placed before the CIT(A), the matter requires fresh adjudication. The Tribunal remitted the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, allowing them to call for a remand report if necessary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the interest of justice and that additional evidence was placed on record, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the new evidence and a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the principles of justice. The appeal was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present documents and evidence for agricultural income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without properly considering the detailed submissions and evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AY 2016-17 return was filed timely within the extended due date and the loss was determined in a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). Consequently, the CPC's reason for disallowance was factually incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and to allow the benefit of brought forward losses.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order deciding the issues on merits and violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to verify additional evidence submitted by the assessee. Crucial details regarding Income Disclosure Scheme (IDS) declarations were not examined by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3134 days, holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not impose any bar or limitation on a cooperative society having transactions with nominal members. It further noted that the term 'member' under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act includes nominal members. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. CIT, which interpreted 'member' in the context of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the definition in the relevant State Cooperative Societies Act, the Tribunal found that loans given to nominal members would qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Consequently, the disallowance of the entire claim of Rs. 3,67,02,901/- by the AO was deleted. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to verify the details of transactions with members, nominal members (including those who superannuated and those who joined after superannuation) after the assessee furnishes them, possibly with an affidavit. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the grounds raised by the Revenue for AY 2017-18. For AY 2018-19, the issues were common, and the same findings were applied, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's grounds for that year as well.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explanations for the credits (like sale of jewellery, loans, reimbursements) but failed to submit them to the AO or CIT(A), partly due to issues with notices during the Covid-19 period. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present all relevant details.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO failed to properly examine the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F, which was directly linked to the reassessment reasons. The PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was held that since the details regarding amalgamation were not placed before the CIT(A), the matter requires fresh adjudication. The Tribunal remitted the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, allowing them to call for a remand report if necessary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 190 days, citing reasonable cause and relevant case laws. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that dividend distribution tax is payable by the domestic company at the rate specified in Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, and not at the rate prescribed in the DTAA, unless the treaty explicitly extends protection to the domestic company.

The Tribunal held that dividend distribution tax is payable by the domestic company at the rate specified in Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, and not at the rate prescribed in the DTAA, unless the treaty explicitly extends protection to the domestic company.

The Tribunal held that dividend distribution tax is payable by the domestic company at the rate specified in Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, and not at the rate prescribed in the DTAA, unless the treaty explicitly extends protection to the domestic company.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO's assessment order was cryptic and lacked proper inquiry. The assessment was completed without adequate verification of the issues involved.

The Tribunal held that the addition regarding unexplained investment in shares was incorrect due to clerical mistakes in the AO's calculation, and the amount available for investment was correctly calculated by the assessee. The addition for the amount received from relatives was also deleted as it was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant and the principle of substantial justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal on its merits after condoning the delay.

The tribunal held that the disallowance of PF and Superannuation fund contribution was uncalled for as it was made on labour charges and salary, and the AO failed to consider this. Regarding the wife's salary, a partial disallowance was made due to insufficient details to justify the quantum, while acknowledging prior consistent payments.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders, restoring the issues to the CIT(E)'s file. A final opportunity was granted to the appellant to submit details, after which the CIT(E) is to decide the applications afresh.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders, restoring the issues to the CIT(E)'s file. A final opportunity was granted to the appellant to submit details, after which the CIT(E) is to decide the applications afresh.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not invalid as the assessee did not object to the notice under Section 148. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal found that the impugned sum represented sales of Turmeric recorded in the assessee's books, and the profit was already declared.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide adequate time to the appellant for responding to the show-cause notice, which violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo consideration.

The tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, noting that the assessee would not have gained by delaying. Without adjudicating the merits, the tribunal remitted the cases back to the Ld. CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity for hearing and compliance, directing the Ld. CIT(E) to pass a speaking order. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence obtained by the assessee through RTI, which had a bearing on the eligibility for deduction. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the prescribed three-year period. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to comply with notices but also considering the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. The issue of regular registration was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E). The appellant was granted one final opportunity to explain and substantiate its case.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(E) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E). The appellant was granted one final opportunity to explain and substantiate its case.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and if not eligible, to verify the claim of expenditure against gross receipts and compute the taxable income accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide adequate time to the appellant for responding to the show-cause notice, which violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a reasonable cause and condoned the delay of 136 days. The Tribunal further directed the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate all issues on merits, including those challenging the validity of the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeal involving the quantum addition, which led to the penalty, had already been set aside by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.