ITAT Pune Judgments — May 2026

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

ITA 1658/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).

MOHAMMED ABDUL RAZZAK MOHAMMED ABDUL KAREEM,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 1, NANDED, NANDED

ITA 1661/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).

MOHAMMED ABDUL RAZZAK MOHAMMED ABDUL KAREEM,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 1, NANDED, NANDED

ITA 1662/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).

DEVIDAS BABULAL MAHAJAN,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

ITA 1663/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).

DEVIDAS BABULAL MAHAJAN,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

ITA 1664/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).

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

ITA 1685/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).

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

ITA 1704/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).

BHIKAJI SHAMRAO PATIL,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1706/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).

BHIKAJI SHAMRAO PATIL,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1707/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).

YASHWANT ISHWAR CHOTHE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1708/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).

YASHWANT ISHWAR CHOTHE ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1709/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).

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

ITA 1713/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 KRISHNA DAMARE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1714/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 KRISHNA DAMARE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1715/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).

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

ITA 1716/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).

DATTATRAYA RAOSAHEB BHALERAO,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1718/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).

DATTATRAYA RAOSAHEB BHALERAO,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGER, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1719/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).

RAJENDRA VENKATESH PURANIK,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 1728/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).

RAJENDRA VENKATESH PURANIK,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 1729/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).

PRAKASH GANPATRAO INGAVALE ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1730/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).

PRAKASH GANPATRAO INGAVALE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1731/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).

SANDESH HARISHCHANDRA KHEDEKAR ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1732/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).

SANDESH HARISHCHANDRA KHEDEKAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1733/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).

AJAY HILAL SALUNKHE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1751/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).

AJAY HILAL SALUNKHE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1752/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).

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

ITA 1754/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 1755/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).

AMITA KAMLESH RUPAREL,SANGLI vs ITO, WARD-2, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 2658/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A). The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate her case with requisite details.

LALITRAO BHASKARRAO PATIL ,MUMBAI vs ITO 1(4), JALGAON

ITA 1181/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case with requisite details, considering the interest of justice.

DON BOSCO YUVA VIKAS SANSTHA,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 2815/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the accumulated funds were utilized within the 6th year (the year immediately following the 5-year period), which was permissible under the law prevailing at the time of accumulation. Therefore, the addition made by the CPC was not justified.

SHAILESH SHRIKANT DINDORKAR,PUNE vs ACIT CIRCLE - 5, PUNE

ITA 2795/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

ANAND BHIKLING TODKARI,SHARAVANI CONSTRUCTIONS, NEAR GRAMPANCHAYAT vs ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR

ITA 2785/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2014-2015Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the time granted by the CIT(A) to provide details was inadequate. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

ARIHANT VASTUNIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,RATNAGIRI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 80/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal held that an order rejecting an application for immunity under Section 270AA is appealable, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

SHRI DATTATRAYA DE vs THAN TRUST,PUNEVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

ITA 35/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is directory in nature and can be furnished even at the appellate stage. Following judicial precedents, the claim for exemption under Section 11 was allowed.

NANDU BABURAO JADHAV,NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA vs ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 132/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs RAMESH SHANKARLAL BHANDARI, PUNE

ITA 3351/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the consideration received was for relinquishing rights in the entire larger land parcel, not just the portion conveyed. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the indexed cost of acquisition for the entire land.

SHRI SAI MINING SERVICE,SINDHUDURG vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL

ITA 3103/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed19 May 2026AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they deserved an opportunity to present expense details and prove similar business activity in the past. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

MAGASVARGIYA VIDYUT KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATASANSTHA MARYADIT,RATNAGIRI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 943/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal, following Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions, held that primary credit cooperative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest and dividend income earned from other cooperative banks. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

DALIMITRA BAPUSAHEB PATIL GRANTHALAYA,KOLHAPUR vs ITO (E) , KOLHAPUR

ITA 768/PUN/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a registered society where beneficiaries' shares are not determined, should be taxed at normal rates and not the Maximum Marginal Rate. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Circular No. 320 and judicial precedents.

KOLHAPUR ZILA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR

ITA 105/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.

RESMI DEEPCHAND OSWAL,PUNE vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

ITA 361/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2021-22Remanded

The Tribunal held that the AO should verify if the other co-owners offered their share of rental income and did not claim TDS credit. If this is confirmed, the AO should allow the remaining TDS credit to the assessee.

NILESH ARJUN PAYGUDE,PUNE vs ITO(IT) WARD 3, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 375/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CPC erred in calculating the interest under Section 234B up to the date of processing the return. The assessee had rightly calculated the interest up to the date of filing the updated return after paying the additional tax and interest.

HARIBHAU MADHAVRAV JADHAV,NASHIK vs ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 60/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

JAYASHREE SURENDRA BHOIR,URAN vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PANVEL

ITA 66/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decision in Rupesh Rashmikant Shah vs. Union of India, holding that interest awarded on compensation from the date of the claim petition until the award is compensatory and not exigible to tax.

DHANAJI ANANDA MAGAR,SANGLI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

ITA 82/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after condoning the delay.

DAYANAND SIDRAMAPPA VIJAPURE,SOLAPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), SOLAPUR

ITA 87/PUN/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal ground raised by the assessee concerning the additions made beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

SAMWAT SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 913/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

VINAYAK SUDHIR DIWAN,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 67(92), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 939/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the TDS credit appearing in Form 26AS merely on a technical ground. The Tribunal relied on previous ITAT decisions to direct the Assessing Officer to allow the TDS credit.

M/S. MINAKSHI BUILDERS,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPEALS-2, PUNE

ITA 451/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.

M/S. MINAKSHI BUILDERS,AHMEDNAGAR vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPEALS-2, PUNE

ITA 450/PUN/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed18 May 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO relied on 'borrowed satisfaction' from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. Citing High Court judgments, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.