ITAT Pune Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned assessment orders. It restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication. The JAO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee and verify its claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, deciding the issue in accordance with law.

The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions but, in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, opted to follow the view favorable to the assessee. Citing judgments from the Karnataka, Kerala, and Madras High Courts, the Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as Section 200A, which provides the machinery for intimating such fees, was amended to include it only from that date. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fees.

The Tribunal, relying on its own previous judgments, ruled that dividend income received by a Co-operative Society from investments in other Co-operative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were accordingly allowed.

The Tribunal found that the Trust's objects are charitable and its activities are genuine, supported by documentation of financial aid provided to students through banking channels. It was noted that the loans taken from trustees were repaid within the same year, utilized for charitable activities, and involved no interest or charge on the Trust's property. Citing the Allahabad High Court, the Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated Section 12A of the Act and directed the CIT(E) to grant the registrations under sections 12A and 80G(5).

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without deciding on merits, especially when the assessee had clarified that the VSVS application was not accepted. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded all five appeals back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, instructing them to grant a proper hearing and consider binding precedents, specifically regarding Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed well within the prescribed time limit and its rejection was based on a technical ground of delay, not merits. It set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter to the CIT (Exemption) with a direction to treat the application as timely and decide it afresh on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions but, in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, opted to follow the view favorable to the assessee. Citing judgments from the Karnataka, Kerala, and Madras High Courts, the Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as Section 200A, which provides the machinery for intimating such fees, was amended to include it only from that date. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fees.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without deciding on merits, especially when the assessee had clarified that the VSVS application was not accepted. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded all five appeals back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, instructing them to grant a proper hearing and consider binding precedents, specifically regarding Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015.

The Tribunal observed that the non-compliance by the assessee was unintentional, caused by his demise on 19.12.2013, requiring time for the legal heir to represent the case. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act for not stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Consequently, the case was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, relying on its own previous judgments, ruled that dividend income received by a Co-operative Society from investments in other Co-operative Banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were accordingly allowed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without deciding on merits, especially when the assessee had clarified that the VSVS application was not accepted. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded all five appeals back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, instructing them to grant a proper hearing and consider binding precedents, specifically regarding Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without deciding on merits, especially when the assessee had clarified that the VSVS application was not accepted. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded all five appeals back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, instructing them to grant a proper hearing and consider binding precedents, specifically regarding Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015.

The Tribunal acknowledged conflicting High Court decisions but, in the absence of a jurisdictional High Court ruling, opted to follow the view favorable to the assessee. Citing judgments from the Karnataka, Kerala, and Madras High Courts, the Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for periods prior to 01.06.2015, as Section 200A, which provides the machinery for intimating such fees, was amended to include it only from that date. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the late fees.

Following the pronouncements by the Hon'ble Karnataka and Sikkim High Courts, the Tribunal held that interest earned by a Co-operative Society from its investments with other Co-operative Banks is indeed eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claimed deduction for the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned by the assessee, a co-operative credit society, on its fixed deposits maintained as per statutory requirements, is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's operational difficulties and limited technical knowledge of its staff but emphasized the assessee's responsibility to comply with notices. While agreeing that non-compliance occurred, the Tribunal held that a penalty for both defaults was excessive and should be restricted to the non-compliance with the second notice. Therefore, the penalty under section 272A(1)(d) was reduced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation, recognizing the cash deposits as part of regular business operations and noting the assessee had declared income under section 44AD. Estimating the turnover at Rs. 46,00,000 and the corresponding 8% net profit under section 44AD at Rs. 3,68,000, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 66,470 (difference between estimated profit and declared income) and deleted the remaining addition of Rs. 28,12,530.

The tribunal held that income from the sale of lawn was not eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as it was not part of the eligible housing project or construction activity. However, it partially allowed Ground No. 1 by directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs. 7,00,000/-, estimating net income at 70% of the gross receipts. The tribunal also held that the income from the sale of lawn did not qualify as agricultural income under Section 10(1) because the activity did not involve basic agricultural operations as defined by the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee accepted the on-money payment but could not provide sufficient details to explain its source before the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify the source of cash withdrawals from the assessee's bank accounts for making the alleged payment.

The Tribunal restored both issues, namely the interest disallowance of Rs. 27.01 Lacs under Section 36(1)(iii) and the prior period interest disallowance of Rs. 20.38 Lacs, to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that various factual aspects required verification. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the Covid-19 pandemic and other reasons, citing Supreme Court precedents. It restored all issues, including the claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, with a direction to provide a fair and proper opportunity to the assessee and decide in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal condoned the 56-day delay in filing the appeal, finding "reasonable cause" for the delay. It held that the CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed the assessee's appeal as defective, as evidence showed Form No.35 and other documents were e-filed, though they did not appear on the CIT(A)'s e-portal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's financial statements, including the cash in hand figure as of March 31, 2016, were furnished during a prior scrutiny assessment for AY 2016-17, which concluded with Nil addition. This implies the information was known to the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo examination, specifically to verify the closing cash balance as of March 31, 2016, from the records of the AY 2016-17 assessment.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimate basis. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The tribunal acknowledged the rectification orders issued by the Assessing Officer that resolved the assessee's original grievance. As the assessee expressed a wish to withdraw the appeals due to the complete redressal of the issue, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal, and both appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal acknowledged the rectification orders issued by the Assessing Officer that resolved the assessee's original grievance. As the assessee expressed a wish to withdraw the appeals due to the complete redressal of the issue, the tribunal permitted the withdrawal, and both appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in sustaining an addition of Rs. 77,62,097/- out of the total addition. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimate basis. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimate basis. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimate basis. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a code should not disentitle the assessee to its claim and that the CIT(Exemption) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution without addressing the merits, thereby violating Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Both the quantum addition appeal and the penalty appeal were set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a directive to provide the assessee a final opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously set aside similar matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on legal and merit grounds. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on deposits maintained as per statutory requirements under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and RBI guidelines is business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Consequently, the penalty levied was also deleted.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously set aside similar matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on legal and merit grounds. Following this precedent, the Tribunal also set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to raise additional claims before appellate authorities and that the appellate authorities have jurisdiction to entertain such claims. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of capital gains computation.

The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia compensation received by the assessee was voluntary and not in the nature of compensation for termination of service, thus not taxable. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimate basis. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned on deposits maintained as per statutory requirements under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and RBI guidelines is business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Consequently, the penalty levied was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the wrong selection of a code should not disentitle the assessee to its claim and that the CIT(Exemption) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was reasonable and amounted to a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative credit society from its surplus funds deposited in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The character of the income does not change, and it is attributable to the society's primary business of providing credit facilities.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's non-compliance unintentional and, referencing a previous decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2013-14, restored all issues on merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order, while the assessee was advised to update contact details and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that for reassessment notices issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) is mandatory under Section 151. Since the AO obtained approval only from the PCIT, the notice issued under Section 148 was deemed invalid and bad in law. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed due to lack of proper jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that once the quantum addition, which was the fundamental basis for the penalty under section 271AAC(1), had been deleted by the CIT(A), and this deletion was not appealed by the Revenue, the penalty itself could not survive. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal to be hyper-technical, asserting that the AO should have *suo motu* deleted the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's unfamiliarity with e-proceedings. It restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, directing that all additional evidence be considered and a proper opportunity of hearing be granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issues raised in the present appeal to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for a de novo assessment. This de novo assessment is to be conducted after the Ld. CIT(E) decides on the assessee's application for regular registration under Section 12A of the Act, with the assessee responsible for providing this information to the JAO.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee failed to appear for hearings and did not produce any evidence to controvert the findings of the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding the genuineness of cash deposits and the gift from his spouse.

The Tribunal found that due to bonafide reasons, the assessee failed to comply with the CIT(A)'s notices. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 175 days, relying on Supreme Court judgments and adopting a justice-oriented approach. Despite the assessee's repeated non-appearance, the Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal, specifically concerning the penalty under section 270A, to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, to be heard along with the pending quantum appeal. The assessee was directed to update contact details and remain vigilant.