ITAT Pune Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition as there was no document on record to prove the alleged investment or cash payment by the assessee. The onus was on the AO to prove the addition, which was not discharged.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in invoking Section 263. The information regarding the cash loan was vague and not linked to the assessee's assessment year. No incriminating material was found during the search related to the assessee for the relevant AY. Therefore, the Pr.CIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished Form 10E and the computation of income with the claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the claim of relief under Section 89(1) should also have been considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted the TDS credit of ₹27,14,806/- as claimed, setting aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directing the AO to grant the credit. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of interest charged under Section 234A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal, which is not permissible. Following a High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed against a non-existent entity, despite the revenue's knowledge of the merger, is a substantive illegality. Following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in City Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee go to the root of the matter regarding the land being agricultural. The Tribunal admitted these evidences and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not decide the appeals on merits due to non-compliance and delay. The Tribunal restored both the quantum appeal and the penalty issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case with requisite details.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to pay the tax and surcharge on the declared income under the IDS, 2016, the declaration was invalid, and the income was rightly treated as unexplained. The penalty was thus rightly levied as the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted the non-compliance by the assessee and the dismissal by the lower authorities. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case with requisite details.

The Tribunal held that the additional evidences furnished by the assessee were unreliable and an afterthought to justify the increase in capital. The assessee failed to substantiate the huge increase in capital with credible evidence, and thus, the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the statement recorded during the survey had evidentiary value. The assessee's claim of not completing the transaction and returning the advance was not substantiated with evidence and was considered an afterthought.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application to withdraw the appeal since the relief was obtained from the Assessing Officer. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals, accepting the explanation of bona fide reliance on incorrect professional advice as reasonable cause. It held that the CIT (Exemption) denied the trust a proper and effective opportunity of being heard by providing inadequate time to respond to a notice, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection orders and remanded the applications to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding a reasonable cause due to professional advice and a lack of opportunity afforded to the appellant. The appeals were set aside and remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on its merits. The High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra was cited as precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the consequential assessment resulted in no demand against the assessee, accepting the returned Nil income. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee is taxable income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act, as it is not directly related to the acquisition of fixed assets, making Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) inapplicable. The issue of disallowance for delayed employee contributions to PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) and the understated duty drawback receipt were both remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication and verification of details.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was not directly or indirectly relatable to acquiring any fixed assets. Therefore, Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable, and the subsidy was to be treated as income u/s 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Revenue's appeals concerning the subsidy were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were not relatable to acquiring any fixed assets. Consequently, Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable. The subsidies were to be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The disallowance of late payment of ESIC and PF contributions was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The issue regarding duty draw back was also restored to the AO.

The Tribunal ruled that the subsidy received by the assessee under PSI, 2007, was not relatable to fixed asset acquisition, thus Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) was inapplicable, and the subsidy was taxable as revenue income under Section 2(24)(xviii). The issues concerning disallowance of delayed PF/ESI contributions and understatement of duty drawback were both remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue concerning the addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rates was debatable, as evidenced by its journey up to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was debatable, having travelled up to the Supreme Court. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not imposable. The Tribunal set aside the penalty order and directed deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the subsidies received were not directly or indirectly relatable to the acquisition of any fixed assets, and thus, Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act was not applicable. Consequently, the subsidy is to be treated as income under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Act. The Tribunal also set aside the issue of delayed PF/ESI payments to the Assessing Officer for further examination and allowed the ground related to duty draw back for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the addition for sale of sugar at concessional rates had travelled up to the Supreme Court and was considered a debatable issue. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the sale of sugar at concessional rates was debatable, as it had travelled up to the Supreme Court. Citing various judgments, the Tribunal concluded that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted if the issue is debatable and the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rates was debatable, having travelled up to the Supreme Court. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the crucial legal ground regarding the limitation period for issuing the Section 148 notice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of all grounds, particularly the limitation issue, providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(A) was bad in law as it confirmed an addition that was not made by the Assessing Officer and without any notice for enhancement. The CIT(A) had not properly read the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals on technical grounds without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC and that the CIT(A)/NFAC's dismissal on technical grounds without considering merits was unjustified. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized preferring substantial justice over technicalities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to notices from the CIT(A)/NFAC, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. However, considering the arguments, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a final opportunity for the assessee to substantiate her claims.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, granting the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate her case with requisite details. The CIT(A)/NFAC is directed to decide the issue after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.) and Karnataka High Court decisions (e.g., Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd.), held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits of its surplus funds with co-operative banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing appeals was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, specifically the CIRP process and issues with e-filing access. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, especially when the delay is not deliberate.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the loose papers were not directly linked to the assessee and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, also noting issues with the validity of the notice issued under Section 153C and the approval under Section 153D.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in taxing the advance as forfeited income because the matter is sub-judice, there is no forfeiture clause in the agreement, and no evidence of forfeiture was produced. The advance will be adjusted at the time of sale of the property.

The Tribunal held that the payments made for technical and R&D services, when the recipient has no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and the services form part of the assessee's business, are to be treated as business income under Article 7 of the India-Thailand DTAA and are not taxable in India. The residual Article 22 cannot be invoked.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a 'reasonable cause' (exploring the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme) and was not intentional. Citing Apex Court judgments, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee to Hortigenetics Research (SE Asia) Limited constitute business income and are not taxable in India as per Article 7 of the India-Thailand DTAA, given that Hortigenetics does not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. The Tribunal noted that the DTAA does not explicitly cover FTS, and relying on judicial precedents, concluded that such payments, when they are part of the business income and there is no PE, cannot be taxed under residual Article 22 of the DTAA.

The Tribunal noted that it had previously decided a similar appeal for the assessee for the same assessment year, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs.10 lakhs on an adhoc basis. Following this precedent, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.