ITAT Pune Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the application primarily on two grounds: inapplicability of section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)(b) due to previous AY exemption claims and violation of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act regarding the loan. The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions where non-obtaining prior permission was considered a procedural lapse.

The Tribunal held that penalty was leviable on disallowed commission expenses as inaccurate particulars were furnished. However, for the addition on account of waiver of interest, it was held that the assessee had a bona fide belief, thus not attracting penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to provide concrete documentary evidence to substantiate their claims regarding the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of deemed dividend for the debit balance was justified. However, it found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for rejecting the claim of accrued interest on credit balances was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when there is a delay in filing an appeal. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that penalty was leviable on disallowed commission expenses as inaccurate particulars were furnished. However, for the addition on account of waiver of interest, it was held that the assessee had a bona fide belief, thus not attracting penalty.

The Tribunal held that penalty was leviable on disallowed commission expenses as inaccurate particulars were furnished. However, for the addition on account of waiver of interest, it was held that the assessee had a bona fide belief, thus not attracting penalty.

The Tribunal held that penalty was leviable on disallowed commission expenses as inaccurate particulars were furnished. However, for the addition on account of waiver of interest, it was held that the assessee had a bona fide belief, thus not attracting penalty.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 10DA is a procedural requirement and its delayed submission does not warrant the denial of an otherwise allowable deduction. Relying on Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with procedural requirements should not result in the denial of deductions.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond to notices from the AO and CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's request for a final opportunity to substantiate their case, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the submissions that miscommunication led to the non-representation, restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details, with liberty to the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass orders as per law if the assessee failed to comply.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of deemed dividend for the debit balance was justified. However, it found that the CIT(A)'s reasoning for rejecting the claim of accrued interest on credit balances was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment order and the first appeal order were passed ex-parte. Considering the submissions of the assessee's counsel regarding the circumstances leading to non-appearance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals and, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of excusable non-compliance, restored the matters to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee had explained the source of funds and the source of source. It also directed the AO to allow the deduction under Section 54F after verification.

The tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity for virtual hearing is a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided to restore both issues to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification. For AY 2020-21, the AO was directed to verify if the assessee declared additional income of Rs. 21 lakhs and whether this income was utilized elsewhere. If the additional income was not utilized, the AO was instructed to grant the telescoping benefit. The AO was also directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard. The same reasoning and directions were applied to AY 2021-22 concerning the addition of Rs. 5,00,000, with the AO to verify the declared additional income of Rs. 3.71 lakhs and grant telescoping benefit if applicable. The main grounds raised by the assessee in both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. Additional grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as 'not pressed'.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed telescoping benefit against additional commission income declared. However, this claim was not properly raised or examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the declared income and its utilization.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were capital receipts from members and not income. Since the assessee did not get a proper hearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC and claims to have substantiating evidence, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in cases where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal decided on merits, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were capital receipts from members and not income. Since the assessee did not get a proper hearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC and claims to have substantiating evidence, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were capital receipts from members and not income. Since the assessee did not get a proper hearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC and claims to have substantiating evidence, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were capital receipts from members and not income. Since the assessee did not get a proper hearing before the CIT(A)/NFAC and claims to have substantiating evidence, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.