ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2026

BHARTI DIWAKAR PAWAR,NASHIK vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENRE, DELHI

ITA 2226/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution, following a jurisdictional High Court ruling. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.

BHAWANISHANKAR GINNING FACTORY,DHULE vs ACIT, CIRCLE-DHULE, DHULE

ITA 1909/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the loan received by the assessee firm from Mahesh Ginning Pvt. Ltd. is indeed a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). This is because the partners of the assessee firm were also substantial shareholders in the company that provided the loan, fulfilling the conditions of the section.

BRISSUN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 3183/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the binding precedent that no late fee under Section 234E is leviable if the return was filed before June 1, 2015, and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRISSUN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 3184/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the binding precedent that no late fee under Section 234E is leviable if the return was filed before June 1, 2015, and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRISSUN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 3182/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the binding precedent that no late fee under Section 234E is leviable if the return was filed before June 1, 2015, and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRISSUN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 3181/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the binding precedent that no late fee under Section 234E is leviable if the return was filed before June 1, 2015, and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRISSUN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 3180/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the binding precedent that no late fee under Section 234E is leviable if the return was filed before June 1, 2015, and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

BRISSUN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 3179/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the binding precedent that no late fee under Section 234E is leviable if the return was filed before June 1, 2015, and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

SANDIP CHANDRAKANT RENUSE,KATRAJ vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (2), PUNE, SWARGET

ITA 887/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was from the assessee's regular business of milk distribution and commission income. The genuineness of the business and a major portion of cash deposits were not in dispute.

SHINGAVI SUMITKUMAR DILIPCHAND,PUNE vs CIT(A), PUNE

ITA 61/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on an unreliable excel sheet and retracted statements, and the AO failed to prove any cash payment. The assessee's evidence of legitimate payments and NRI status was considered.

MALHOTRA WEIKFIELD FOUNDATION,PUNE vs EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

ITA 494/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay.

MALHOTRA WEIKFIELD FOUNDATION,PUNE vs EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

ITA 437/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 May 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay.

SANJAY MADHUKAR SONAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1717/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SARITA DAYANAND BENDRE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, SANGLI

ITA 1723/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

MAHENDRA CHANDRAKANT ABHANG,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), PUNE

ITA 1705/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

CHANDRAKANT BHALCHANDRARAO KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

ITA 1703/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

MAHIBOOB ABDUL BIRAJDAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 1686/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C). The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SUNIL MADHUKAR DESHPANDE,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 4(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1645/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SUSHIL MAHADEORAO JUWAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1520/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

NARAYAN MARUTI PATIL,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1498/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

GRAMNIRBHAR FOUNDATION,KOLHAPUR vs CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 357/PUN/2025[-]Status: Disposed20 May 2026Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the registration when the appellant's objects were charitable and aligned with Section 2(15). It was also noted that some incidental expenses are natural for fulfilling charitable objects.

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE vs HARGOBIND HAZARIMAL TEJWANI, PUNE

ITA 2778/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer rightly initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 as the seized material did not directly pertain to the assessee, thus Section 153C was not applicable. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment on technical grounds was found inconsistent.

RAKESH SUTHAKAT SHETTY,KHARGHAR vs ITO, PANVEL

ITA 2720/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding no reason to deviate from the ex-parte assessment made by the AO and sustained by the lower appellate authority. The assessee's failure to provide any submissions at any stage led to this decision.

RAMDAS MARUTI YEWALE,KEDARI BLDG vs ITO PUNE , WARD

ITA 2608/PUN/2025[2019-2020]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2019-2020Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the net profit rate should be estimated based on the past trend. Applying a net profit rate of 5.75% was deemed appropriate to fairly estimate the business income.

DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE vs ASHISH AGARWAL, PUNE

ITA 1582/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that since the services were rendered outside India by entities not having a Permanent Establishment in India, the income did not accrue or arise in India, and thus Section 195 was not applicable.

SAMEER YADRAM SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs ITO WD-1(1) , AURANGABAD

ITA 864/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

S M SHANKARRAO MOHITE-PATIL PRATISTAN,YASHWANTNAGAR vs ITO WARD 1(2), PUNE

ITA 371/PUN/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(E)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E)'s file for fresh consideration, with a direction to grant the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

TANAJI SHRIPATI BISURE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 1735/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

TANAJI SHRIPATI BISURE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 1734/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SARITA DAYANAND BENDRE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, SANGLI

ITA 1722/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

CHANDRAKANT BAPURAO KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1721/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

CHANDRAKANT BAPURAO KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1720/PUN/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

KENNETH CHINGAKHAM,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1712/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

NILIMA JAGDISH KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

ITA 1711/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

NILIMA JAGDISH KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

ITA 1710/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

CHANDRAKANT BHALCHANDRARAO KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5) , AURANGABAD

ITA 1702/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SAMEER YADRAM SHARMA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD-1(1), AURANGABAD

ITA 865/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SNEHAL SAJIT DHEKANE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1701/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

VILAS DAJIBARAO PATIL,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, HINGOLI, HINGOLI

ITA 1756/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C). The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

MUNEER AHEMAD ABBASMIYAN ATTAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SOLPAUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 1753/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SNEHAL SAJIT DHEKANE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1700/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

NANDKUMAR DIGAMBAR JADHAV,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 1, KUDAL

ITA 1657/PUN/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SANJAY SADASHIV KSHIRSAGAR,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1646/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

RANJANA BHARAT GAIKWAD,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), PUNE

ITA 106/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations. The matters were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

SHRI APPASAHEB DESHMUKH SAMAJIK BAHUUDDESHIYA SANSTHA,MALSHIRAS vs ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

ITA 136/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeal on merits but had dismissed it for want of prosecution. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to grant the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case.

BHARAT MARUTI GAIKWAD,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), PUNE

ITA 107/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the principles of substantial justice over technical considerations. The matters were restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.

MAKARAND PRABHAKAR ABHYANKAR,MUMBAI vs ITO, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1496/PUN/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

NARAYAN MARUTI PATIL,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1499/PUN/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SUSHIL MAHADEORAO JUWAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1521/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

SUNIL MADHUKAR DESHPANDE,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD4(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1644/PUN/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the amounts received by BSNL employees under the VRS were in the nature of retrenchment compensation and were exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).