ITAT Pune Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. Both appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty for the appellant to revive the proceedings if the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax declines to issue the Final Certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had complied with most notices and deserved another opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT for fresh adjudication, with a direction for a personal hearing and updating contact details. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) did not provide reasonable time to the appellant to respond to the notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matters for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal observed that additional evidences were filed before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, impacting most of the additions made by the AO. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering all additional evidences and allowing opportunity for remand report and rebuttal.

The Tribunal held that Rule 37BA is not applicable to the assessee governed by Section 5A. Since the TDS on income other than salary reflected under the assessee's PAN, the full TDS credit of Rs. 45,28,441 should be granted.

The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeals. Both appeals were consequently dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty for the appellant to revive the proceedings if the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax declines to issue the Final Certificate under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for re-examination of the genuineness of purchases from SKTPL. This was due to new evidence presented by the assessee regarding GST search proceedings and closure reports, which were not examined by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007, is a Capital Receipt and not to be deducted from the actual cost of assets for depreciation calculation. The provisions of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act were held to be not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's return and audit report were filed belatedly, leading to the denial of exemption. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order to remand the issue of addition under Section 68 to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of additional evidence. For the Section 80P deduction on interest income from cooperative banks, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded it to the AO for fresh decision, considering past orders and the principle of consistency.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction. Although the forms were not submitted during the assessment proceedings, they were later provided as additional evidence, and the DSIR report confirmed eligible expenditure.

The Tribunal held that due to the negligence of the assessee's tax consultant, proper representation was not made before the lower authorities, leading to issues. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s observation regarding donations being corpus donations was factually incorrect as the receipts did not specify corpus. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption)'s concern regarding the utilization of accumulated income within the prescribed period was valid, as the AO had not adequately verified this aspect.

The Tribunal noted that the legal issues regarding the validity of reassessment were raised for the first time before it. Citing judicial precedent, the Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to decide grounds not raised before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted all grounds of appeal, both legal and on merits, back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for delay without providing a hearing, violating natural justice. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit after granting an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for delay without providing a hearing, violating natural justice. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit after granting an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. This was based on the principle that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to put additional material to the Assessing Officer, even if it appears clinching.

The Tribunal held that there is no statutory bar to claiming deduction under Section 80G on CSR expenses if they otherwise qualify. The disallowance of the 80G claim by the AO was deemed incorrect, as it would lead to double disallowance.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not properly appreciate the facts and noted contradictions in the AO's remand report. The Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the AO for thorough verification of the put-to-use date for each asset.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing genuine medical reasons for the delay. It held that the disallowance of exemption under section 11 was incorrect as Form 10B was filed before the processing of the return under section 143(1).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing genuine medical reasons for the delay. It held that the disallowance of exemption under section 11 was incorrect as Form 10B was filed before the processing of the return under section 143(1).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing genuine medical reasons for the delay. It held that the disallowance of exemption under section 11 was incorrect as Form 10B was filed before the processing of the return under section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(37) was not substantiated as it failed to prove the compensation was received under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the case back to the CIT(E). It directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee another opportunity to file a corrected application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and furnish all required details, ensuring a proper hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting a 'reasonable cause' for the delay due to communication issues with the previous consultant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal without dealing with the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained as sale proceeds from agricultural activities, duly recorded in the books of accounts and accepted by revenue authorities in prior assessments. However, the addition for commission income was confirmed due to lack of evidence showing it was part of agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for delay without providing a hearing, violating natural justice. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit after granting an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for delay without providing a hearing, violating natural justice. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit after granting an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeals for delay without providing a hearing, violating natural justice. Therefore, the appeals are restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit after granting an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(37) was not substantiated as it failed to prove the compensation was received under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the assessee on 25.07.2022 for Assessment Year 2015-16 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. The reasoning is based on the legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which was followed by the Bombay High Court in Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and the Pune Tribunal in Vishnu Subhash Agarwal. These decisions clarify that for AY 2015-16, notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021 are time-barred and invalid, as they do not fall within the period prescribed under TOLA. The Tribunal found no contrary material or judicial precedent presented by the Revenue. Consequently, Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal, challenging the validity of the reassessment notice, is allowed. As the assessee succeeded on this ground, other grounds challenging the additions on merit were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the interest provision on the loan from the Government of Maharashtra was an ascertained liability, not an unascertained one, and therefore, it could not be disallowed under Section 37. The Tribunal relied on a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing genuine medical reasons for the delay. It held that the disallowance of exemption under section 11 was incorrect as Form 10B was filed before the processing of the return under section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's observations regarding the nil value of goodwill from prior years were uncalled for in the revision proceedings for the current year. However, the PCIT was correct in directing the AO to examine the depreciation claim on goodwill.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the cooperative nature of the assessee and changes in communication rules. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices from the CIT(A) due to ongoing litigation. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) did not pass a detailed speaking order. Therefore, the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to furnish the details of FTC claim for taxes paid in Chile and Spain. The matter is restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for proper examination and grant of FTC.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the cooperative nature of the assessee and changes in communication rules. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 113 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the unfortunate demise of the assessee's brother, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the new procedure for registration has come into force and the assessee selected the wrong sub-section. However, considering the consistent practice of giving one more opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. The issue on merits regarding the eligibility for exemption was restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised grounds regarding non-access of e-mailed notices and the validity of the notice u/s.148. However, since the CIT(A) had not dealt with these issues, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to afford a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished various details in response to notices, and the Revenue's contention that no details were filed was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the ad-hoc disallowance without establishing specific deficiencies. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had contended before the CIT(A) that he carried out transactions on a commission basis, with commissions normally ranging between 2% to 5%. The assessee claimed to have earned 2%, but the CIT(A) finally estimated the commission/net profit at 5%. The Tribunal found no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s finding, as the CIT(A) had considered the nature of the assessee's transactions and his business operating on a commission basis, thus rightly applying a profit rate of 5%. Therefore, no interference was called for in the CIT(A)'s finding. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to disallowance of interest on housing loan, consultancy charges, sales promotion and travelling expenses, and addition for unsecured loans. Grounds related to GST and interest received were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of addition to capital account was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already remanded the case for de novo assessment and that some legal issues challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings were raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Citing a Delhi High Court judgment, the Tribunal affirmed it lacked jurisdiction to decide grounds not arising from the impugned first appellate order. Consequently, the Tribunal restored all issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, ensuring the assessee is provided a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to disallowance of interest on housing loan, consultancy charges, sales promotion and travelling expenses, and addition for unsecured loans. Grounds related to GST and interest received were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of addition to capital account was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was cryptic and did not deal with the facts of the case properly, failing to provide a speaking order as required under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case concerning the transaction reported in IDS, 2016 and had summarily rejected the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the considered view that the issues raised in the appeal deserved to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication by way of a speaking order. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to grant a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition, interest, or penalty, as these were to be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A).

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the assessee had adequately demonstrated ownership, possession, and that the building was put to use during AY 2014-15 through relevant documents. It concluded that the additional evidence submitted to the CIT(A) was merely supplementary, reinforcing previously made claims, and that the Revenue failed to present any material to rebut the assessee's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.