ITAT Pune Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order of dismissal for non-prosecution was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not provide reasons for the decision. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of firstly claiming exemption u/s.10A and thereafter setting off brought forward unabsorbed business losses is justified. The DRP's finding in this regard was affirmed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's grounds were primarily based on a violation of natural justice due to non-receipt of the show-cause notice. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity to the assessee to submit details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the limited opportunities provided to the assessee before the CIT(A) and the facts of the case, the ex-parte order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution violated Section 250(6) of the Act for not stating points for determination and reasons. The Tribunal set aside the order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained separate books of account for both businesses, and the genuineness of the profit from credit facilities and the loss from sugar manufacturing was not controverted. The AO's estimation and addition were deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 263 was not sustainable as the conditions for invoking Section 263 were not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that the Assessee's repairs and maintenance expenditure was recovered from associated enterprises with an appropriate mark-up, and therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's failure to respond to the second notice was due to an employee's mistake. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT for a final opportunity to the assessee to provide details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications for registration and approval, considering the amendment to Section 12A(1)(ac) which allows condonation for reasonable cause. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to furnish details.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed the deduction under section 80P(2)(d), and the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing a deduction that was never claimed. Relying on High Court judgments, the Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from its surplus funds deposited in banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's reasonable cause and reliance on judicial pronouncements. The Tribunal admitted the legal issues raised by the assessee, but decided to remit them, along with the issues on merits, back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted a personal hearing by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case with requisite details, as the assessee claimed to have not filed details before AO but did so before CIT(A)/NFAC.

The Tribunal held that the timelines for filing applications under section 80G(5) are directory in nature, and rejection based on pure technicalities of delay is not justified. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the delayed application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed an application for immunity under Section 270AA of the Act, but the Assessing Officer failed to pass an order within the stipulated time. Following the Delhi High Court's decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant immunity to the assessee and cancel the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding it not intentional. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the issues on merits instead of dismissing the appeal on limitation. Consequently, the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to bring the legal heir on record and provide an opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have condoned the delay, as per the Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, to allow substantial justice. Technicalities should not defeat the cause of justice, especially when the merits of the case need to be examined.

The Tribunal held that interest and dividend income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on several coordinate bench decisions to support this.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the applications, referencing a proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac) introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to present details.

The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148 dated 05.04.2022, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma, which was based on a concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to decide the appeal afresh after the disposal of the quantum assessment appeal.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Citing various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, the Tribunal noted that the delay in filing was due to sufficient cause and not intentional. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to adjudicate afresh, directing the assessee to provide details and submissions regarding the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits and did not respond to statutory notices.

The Tribunal held that the exemption claimed under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gains on the sale of Mishka Finance and Trading Ltd. shares should be allowed. The Tribunal noted that SEBI's final report did not find adverse findings against the assessee, and the transaction evidence was not doubted. High Court decisions in similar cases were also considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the importance of substantial justice, the Tribunal also emphasized the need for procedural discipline and the sanctity of limitation periods. Therefore, the delay was not condoned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a primary credit co-operative society, is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, as it is not a 'co-operative bank' for the purpose of Section 80P(4). This decision followed pronouncements from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee from fixed deposits with banks is attributable to its business activity of providing credit facilities to its members and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the CIT(A)'s findings remained uncontroverted.

The Tribunal held that the delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI was rightly disallowed by the CPC, in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law because it was issued beyond the three-year period from the end of the assessment year without proper sanction as required by Section 151, especially since the income escaping assessment was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the assessment order and penalty were quashed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond and the ex-parte nature of the orders. However, considering the possibility of sufficient cause and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, deeming it unintentional, and admitted it for adjudication. As the ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the non-compliance might not have been intentional due to service issues. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the AO had knowledge of the death of the previous owner and the transfer of business. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had filed an online reply with supporting documents which were not considered. The bank account transactions were already appearing in the audited balance sheet.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 258 days in filing the appeal before it, finding that the delay was not intentional and caused by a genuine clerical mistake. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.