ITAT Pune Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the 'reasonable cause' presented by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since Form 10CCB was filed before the processing of the return under Section 143(1), the deduction under Section 80IB(11A) cannot be denied. The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench decisions and Supreme Court rulings on similar matters.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's in-house research and development facility had been approved by DSIR and renewed periodically, including for the assessment year under consideration. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the conditions regarding the approval of the facility and had submitted Form 3CK. The non-issuance of Forms 3CM and 3CL was attributed to a procedural lapse or delay on the part of DSIR, which was beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that held that mere non-issuance of these forms by DSIR should not disentitle the assessee to the deduction for genuine R&D expenditure, especially up to AY 2016-17. The Tribunal observed that the contents of Form 3CM were largely similar to the regular renewal of recognition granted by DSIR. The Tribunal also noted that DSIR's consistency in issuing forms had been an issue in the past, with the assessee even having to approach the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was reversed, and the weighted deduction of Rs. 32,35,74,524/- was allowed. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not sustainable because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO's lack of clarity on the specific charge rendered the penalty order invalid.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to comment or cross-examine. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue of calculating short-term capital gains to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the provided details. The appeals of both the Revenue and the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the issue of calculating short-term capital gains to the AO for de novo adjudication after examining the provided details. The appeals of both the Revenue and the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the IT Rules by not providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the notices were indeed sent to the wrong email address, constituting a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the assessee's explanation of reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues on merits back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues on merits back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) has the power to condone delays if there is a reasonable cause. Given the assessee's charitable activities and the recent insertion of a proviso empowering condonation, the delay was considered excusable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the penalty is dependent on the quantum addition. Since the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A), the penalty appeal was also remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to unexplained jewellery and cash receipts from a third party, finding the evidence insufficient. However, it confirmed a partial addition related to commission income.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income, not the entire purchase value, especially when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 10% of the total unproved purchases.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income, not the entire purchase value, especially when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 10% of the total unproved purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the validity of the assessment under section 153C, finding no infirmity in the order. Regarding the addition of Rs. 44,62,000/- (restricted by CIT(A) to Rs. 22,31,000/-), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 1% of Rs. 22.31 Crores. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision, noting the assessee's argument that commission rates are generally lower. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of Rs. 2 crores. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition on the grounds that the incriminating documents were seized from a third party (Shri Sharad Bhosale) and not from the assessee's possession. The Tribunal agreed that presumption of ownership applies against the person from whom documents are seized. It also noted that Shri Sharad Bhosale had clarified that the notings were tentative and not actual payments, and that the Revenue had accepted the deletion of a similar addition of Rs. 101 lakhs for AY 2013-14. In the absence of corroborative material, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income, not the entire purchase value, especially when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 10% of the total unproved purchases.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income, not the entire purchase value, especially when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 10% of the total unproved purchases.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income, not the entire purchase value, especially when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 10% of the total unproved purchases.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has opted for the DTVSV Scheme and filed the required forms for withdrawal of the appeal. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to the income, not the entire purchase value, especially when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal directed the addition to be restricted to 10% of the total unproved purchases.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained when the assessee has voluntarily disclosed additional income by filing an updated return under section 139(8A) before the issuance of a notice and has paid the applicable taxes. The Tribunal noted that the intention of section 139(8A) is to promote voluntary tax compliance and reduce litigation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the validity of the assessment under section 153C, finding no infirmity in the order. Regarding the addition of Rs. 44,62,000/- (restricted by CIT(A) to Rs. 22,31,000/-), the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 1% of Rs. 22.31 Crores. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision, noting the assessee's argument that commission rates are generally lower. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of Rs. 2 crores. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition on the grounds that the incriminating documents were seized from a third party (Shri Sharad Bhosale) and not from the assessee's possession. The Tribunal agreed that presumption of ownership applies against the person from whom documents are seized. It also noted that Shri Sharad Bhosale had clarified that the notings were tentative and not actual payments, and that the Revenue had accepted the deletion of a similar addition of Rs. 101 lakhs for AY 2013-14. In the absence of corroborative material, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion. The appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions related to interest on loans, following its previous orders. For supervision charges and other TDS-related disallowances, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Additions for estimated profits were also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Rule 8D of the IT Rules, effective from 02.06.2016, was prospective and not applicable to AY 2016-17. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's ground regarding disallowance under Section 36(1)(vii) based on consistency. The additional ground regarding Section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal noted conflicting opinions from various High Courts and the Supreme Court's observation in the Woodland case regarding the due date for deposit of employee contributions. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that security deposits/retention money deducted from sub-contractors' bills in the ordinary course of business cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law or a bona-fide legal claim that is not accepted by tax authorities does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty is not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is mandated to adjudicate appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) was relied upon.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence, subject to a cost payment.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present evidence, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made the declaration, paid the due taxes, surcharge, and penalty, and Form No. 4 under IDS, 2016 was eventually issued. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed a duplicate. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions related to interest on loans, following its previous orders. For supervision charges and other TDS-related disallowances, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Additions for estimated profits were also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions related to interest on loans, following its previous orders. For supervision charges and other TDS-related disallowances, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Additions for estimated profits were also directed to be deleted.