ITAT Pune Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s rejection order and remanded the case back, instructing the CIT(E) to grant the assessee one final opportunity to furnish all required details and evidence for a decision on merits. The Ld. DR did not object to this course of action.

The Tribunal held that the impugned transaction, as reported by HSBC Bank, occurred on 23.03.2009, pertaining to assessment year 2009-10, not 2010-11. The addition made by the AO for AY 2010-11 was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.5,94,000 as perquisite value was not justified as this amount was already considered in the salary slip and offered to tax. To add it again would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to decide the grounds of appeal as required by Section 250(6) of the Act and dismissed the appeal solely for want of prosecution. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to decide the grounds of appeal as required by Section 250(6) of the Act and had dismissed the appeal solely for non-prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously held belated filing of Form 3CFA to be a procedural error and allowed relief. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the assessee's inability to appear before the CIT(A)/NFAC due to the death of their earlier CA, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the perquisite amount was already considered in the salary statement and thus the addition by the AO and confirmation by the CIT(A) amounted to double addition. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) on account of perquisite value was not justified. The Tribunal found that the amount of Rs. 5,94,000/- was already considered in the salary for the relevant financial year and offering it again would constitute double taxation. Therefore, the addition was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption for leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) of the Income Tax Act. It relied on precedents from other Tribunal benches (Govind Chhatwani and Neelam Gupta cases) and observations from the Delhi High Court, noting that the CBDT had suo motu revised the exemption limit under Section 10(10AA) to Rs. 25 lakhs via a notification dated 24.05.2023, making the assessee's claim of Rs. 6,97,100/- eligible.

The Tribunal found that the amount of Rs. 5,94,000/- was indeed already accounted for in the salary statement and adding it again would amount to double taxation. The admission of perquisite in the return was erroneously stated as nil. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the perquisite amount of Rs. 5,94,000/- was already considered in the salary statement for the relevant period. Therefore, adding it again would constitute double taxation. The Tribunal set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a senior citizen born in 1941, was exempt from paying advance tax under Section 207(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were collected from members and the assessee had provided their details, fulfilling the onus. The Tribunal also held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its business activities is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal held that the addition amounted to double taxation, as the perquisite value of Rs. 5,94,000/- was already considered in the salary for the financial year 2015-16. The erroneous mention of 'nil' in the return form did not justify a fresh addition.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the Audit Report on Form 10B is directory and can be furnished at the appellate stage. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing Form 9A, citing a CBDT circular and acknowledging technical issues during the first year of e-filing.

The Tribunal observed that ITA No.2117/PUN/2025 was a duplicate appeal. Since the Ld. DR had no objection, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the totality of facts and with the consent of the DR, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings, finding that proper opportunity was given to the assessee and the objections were validly dismissed by the CIT(A). However, on the merit of the perquisite addition, the Tribunal found that the Rs.5,94,000/- was already included in the assessee's salary as per the annual salary statement, making the fresh addition a double addition. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the perquisite and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessment order might be bad due to lack of DIN and that the addition for cash deposits was not justified as the assessee had provided sufficient explanation. The treating of declared income as under-reported was also found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application. The Tribunal found that while some activities were religious, the trust also engaged in various charitable activities and had received 12A/12AA registration previously, indicating charitable nature.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding the grounds on merit. Following the Bombay High Court judgment, it was held that the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the re-assessment proceedings, agreeing with the CIT(A) that proper procedure was followed. However, regarding the merit of the addition, the Tribunal found that the perquisite amount of Rs. 5,94,000/- was already included in the assessee's salary statement for the relevant assessment year. To avoid double taxation, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was running a school without the necessary approval from the Maharashtra Government and had violated applicable state laws. Furthermore, the assessee was found to be earning a net profit exceeding 25%, which indicated profiteering, making it ineligible for registration under Section 12A.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal found that the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence presented regarding the timely filing of appeal fees and the postal receipt.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide the Assessee with an opportunity to file necessary documents. This decision was based on factual errors in the CIT(E)'s rejection and the applicability of the amended Section 80G(5).

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of perquisite value amounted to double addition, as the amount was already considered in the salary income and disclosed in the return. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.

The Tribunal confirmed the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it found that the perquisite amount of Rs.5,94,000 had already been included in the assessee's salary income and offered to tax, despite being erroneously marked as "nil" in the perquisite column of the return. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the TDS was deducted twice on the same sale transaction under different provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held that the reduction of TDS credit by the CPC was not justified.

The Tribunal held that for invoking Section 263, both conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue must be met. While the order might be prejudicial, it was not erroneous as the AO had conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view on a debatable issue. The PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was therefore not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the interest income on Fixed Deposits in the assessee's name was taxable in her hands, as the agreement's cancellation terms did not transfer the interest to the developer. It found no expenditure incurred for earning this income, making Section 57(iii) deduction inapplicable. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant TDS credit for the tax deducted on this interest income.

The Tribunal restored the issues of determining the nature of income from land transactions, unexplained bank deposits, and the applicability of penalty provisions to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments that the nature of land transactions required further examination and that the grounds for additions and penalties needed re-evaluation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was defective because it was in a printed format and did not strike off inapplicable portions, failing to specify the exact charge. Therefore, the penalty is not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the issue of treating the gain from the sale of agricultural land required further adjudication. Similarly, issues related to unexplained cash deposits and loan transactions were restored to the AO. The penalty under Section 271B was also restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the PF and ESIC payments were made before filing the return, and the issue of their allowability was debatable at the time. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that merely claiming an expenditure, which is not accepted by the AO, does not automatically attract penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty imposed u/s 270A(9).

The Tribunal, respectfully following judicial precedent, directed the AO to allow deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest earned. Grounds 2 and 3 raised by the assessee were allowed. Ground 1 was dismissed as it was against an order under Section 263, and Ground 4 was dismissed as general.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for not filing additional evidence before the AO due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and decide the issue on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and should have adjudicated the grounds on merit, as per the High Court's ruling in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. CIT with a direction to decide the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the order u/s.148A(d) and the subsequent notice u/s.148 were bad in law because they were issued after the lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year, and the income escaped was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, violating Section 149. Furthermore, the approval for the notice was not obtained from the statutorily prescribed authority under Section 151.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the original application was filed within the prescribed time limit. The CIT failed to consider the filing of the original application and its subsequent withdrawal due to error. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.

The Tribunal found that the issues regarding additions for sale and purchase of properties, bank deposits, and penalties required further adjudication. The Tribunal restored these issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.