ITAT Pune Judgments — February 2026

The ITAT noted the CIT(A) allowed relief ex-parte without any explanation or clarification from the assessee, who was untraceable even during ITAT proceedings. Finding force in the Revenue's arguments, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO to verify if the amount was received in the current year or an earlier year (e.g., AY 2016-17) and provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw both appeals. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeals were duplicate due to an inadvertent filing error, and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss both appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw both appeals. The reasoning was based on the assessee's submission that the appeals were duplicate due to an inadvertent filing error, and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss both appeals as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided.

The assessee requested to withdraw its appeal before the ITAT, citing that the transfer pricing grounds were resolved under the Mutual Agreement Procedure. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed the contradictory stand taken by the ld. CIT(A) regarding delay condonation. It directed the ld. CIT(A) to condone the 335-day delay in filing the penalty appeal and adjudicate the matter on its merits after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance for one sub-contractor, Sanjay Chandrika Sah, was unjustified as the AO had accepted payments to this party in a prior assessment year. For the other two sub-contractors, the Tribunal found that they had responded to notices, payments were made through banking channels, and the amounts were not substantial given the assessee's overall income, thus deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E by way of intimation issued under section 200A for defaults occurring before 01.06.2015, following previous decisions. Consequently, the impugned orders confirming the levy of fees and interest were deemed unsustainable and were accordingly allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E by way of intimation issued under section 200A for defaults occurring before 01.06.2015, following previous decisions. Consequently, the impugned orders confirming the levy of fees and interest were deemed unsustainable and were accordingly allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E by way of intimation issued under section 200A for defaults occurring before 01.06.2015, following previous decisions. Consequently, the impugned orders confirming the levy of fees and interest were deemed unsustainable and were accordingly allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E by way of intimation issued under section 200A for defaults occurring before 01.06.2015, following previous decisions. Consequently, the impugned orders confirming the levy of fees and interest were deemed unsustainable and were accordingly allowed.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, relying on a Bombay High Court judgment, ruled that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded all seven appeals for de novo adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-compliance, specifically for failing to file a reply to notices issued by the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on their merits. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file all necessary documents. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in the denial of deduction under section 11. It noted that the facts, particularly the belated filing of Form 10B and the filing of the ITR before the deduction was quantified, were identical to the assessee's own case for AY 2018-19, where a coordinate bench had already dismissed a similar appeal. The Tribunal also observed a discrepancy between the deductible income claimed in the ITR and the amount reported in Form 10B, and respectfully followed its previous binding decision.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. Considering the facts and the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. A cost of Rs. 2,000/- was levied on the assessee due to its non-compliance.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-compliance, specifically for failing to file a reply to notices issued by the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on their merits. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file all necessary documents. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-compliance, specifically for failing to file a reply to notices issued by the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on their merits. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file all necessary documents. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-compliance, specifically for failing to file a reply to notices issued by the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on their merits. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file all necessary documents. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-compliance, specifically for failing to file a reply to notices issued by the CIT(A). Consequently, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on their merits. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merit and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file all necessary documents. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E by way of intimation issued under section 200A for defaults occurring before 01.06.2015, following previous decisions. Consequently, the impugned orders confirming the levy of fees and interest were deemed unsustainable and were accordingly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) lacked the power to merely set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer. It thus set aside the Addl./JCIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The AO is directed to allow the TCS claim if found correct based on facts and law.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding no infirmity in it. It observed that the assessee's detailed submissions during the Section 263 proceedings were not available to the AO during the original assessment, thus rendering the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of inquiry and verification. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT rightly invoked Explanation 2 to Section 263.

The Tribunal noted that the Section 263 order, which formed the basis of the AO's assessment order, had been quashed by the Tribunal itself. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263, became infructuous. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that with effect from 01.10.2024, clause (iv) of the proviso to Section 80G(5) of the IT Act was amended, allowing applications for regular approval to be filed at any time after the commencement of activities. Based on this amendment, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee's application was filed within the prescribed period, setting aside the CIT's order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, relying on a Bombay High Court judgment, ruled that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded all seven appeals for de novo adjudication, instructing the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the eligibility of interest income from co-operative banks for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) is a settled legal position. It remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the quantification of interest income from co-operative banks and directed to allow the deduction if the provided details are found correct, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to explain the impugned transactions and provide necessary details.

The Tribunal, relying on a catena of previous decisions including recent pronouncements by its own bench, held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits/investments with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that cooperative banks are essentially cooperative societies, and the issue is no longer `res integra`.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly invoked Section 249(4)(b) as the assessee, not being a regular tax payee and disputing taxable income, was not liable for advance tax. The order of the CIT(A) for the primary appeal (ITA No. 2434/PUN/2025) was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, while a duplicate appeal (ITA No. 2418/PUN/2025) was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to explain the impugned transactions and provide necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the plot of land became the assessee's property in 2007, making the gain long-term and eligible for deduction. It also held that the advances made by the company were trade advances and not covered under Section 2(22)(e).

The Tribunal found that the investment was made through banking channels by Mr. Umesh D. Shinde, acting as the financier. Since the source of the payment to the housing society was explained through banking transactions, whether paid directly by Shinde or by the assessee (from Shinde's funds), Section 69 of the Act was not applicable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and deleted the addition of Rs. 10.50 lakh.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly invoked Section 249(4)(b) as the assessee, not being a regular tax payee and disputing taxable income, was not liable for advance tax. The order of the CIT(A) for the primary appeal (ITA No. 2434/PUN/2025) was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, while a duplicate appeal (ITA No. 2418/PUN/2025) was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present submissions. The CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order u/s 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is advised to provide updated contact information and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 210 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's circumstances and a justice-oriented approach. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits for both the quantum addition and the consequential penalty.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is directory, not mandatory, and FTC cannot be denied solely due to a delay in its submission. It condoned the delay and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the FTC after examining relevant documents and providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing precedents for liberal interpretation. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's first grievance regarding the validity of compulsory scrutiny selection. However, for the second grievance, the Tribunal noted that the rejection order of CIT(Exemption) concerning 12A registration had already been set aside by the Tribunal in a previous order. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues on merits to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, to be carried out after the CIT(Exemption) decides the assessee's 12A registration application.

The tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposit was not substantiated by evidence, confirming the addition made by the AO. However, regarding agricultural income, the tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 210 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's circumstances and a justice-oriented approach. The matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits for both the quantum addition and the consequential penalty.