ITAT Pune Judgments — June 2026

SURESH NAMDEORAO PATIL,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 1787/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SURESH NAMDEORAO PATIL,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 1788/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SURESH ISHWAR RAVAN ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1789/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

NISHA VYANKATESH KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1792/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

PRAKASH DINKAR DESAI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1802/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

ALKA PRABODH CHAVAN,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1806/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

ALKA PRABODH CHAVAN,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1807/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SEEMA VILAS KHANOLKAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1812/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SEEMA VILAS KHANOLKAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1813/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

ARUNA MADAN KHAMKAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1817/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

NAYANA NISHIKANT PANDIT,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1831/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SWATI YOGESH KAVISHWAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1832/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SWATI YOGESH KAVISHWAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1833/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

PANKAJA UDAYKUMAR KAMBLE,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1845/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SHARVARI VILAS JOSHI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KUDAL, KUDAL

ITA 1847/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

DILIP KESHAVRAO RAUTMARE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1848/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SUNIL REVANSIDDHA PASPULE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 1850/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

KAKASAHEB BHAU KURLUPE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1853/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

MARUTI GANAPATI AWATE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI

ITA 1861/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

MAHADEV KALAPPA HUNDRE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1864/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

GURUNATH JAGANNATH PARAB,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KUDAL, KUDAL

ITA 1875/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SHANKAR RAJARAM SAWANT,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI

ITA 1878/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

TULSHIRAM RATAN PATIL,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 1879/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SARIKA SANTOSH TAMHANEKAR,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 1, KUDAL, KUDAL

ITA 1880/PUN/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SARIKA SANTOSH TAMHANEKAR,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 1, KUDAL, KUDAL

ITA 1881/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

DILIP SADASHIV SHINDE,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1882/PUN/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

BASHIR SAHEBKHAN PATHAN,PUNE vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 3127/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

BASHIR SAHEBKHAN PATHAN,PUNE vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 3128/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

NAYANA NISHIKANT PANDIT,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1830/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SUNIL REVANSIDDHA PASPULE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 1851/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

SHARVARI VILAS JOSHI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KUDAL, KUDAL

ITA 1846/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

ARUNA MADAN KHAMKAR,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1816/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees are directed to file revised computations to claim this exemption and receive any eligible refunds.

NISHA VYANKATESH KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1791/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

RAVIKIRAN DAMODAR KUKADE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NAHSIK, NASHIK

ITA 1785/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

NANDURBAR NAGAR PARISHAD,NANDURBAR vs ITO WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 182/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a local authority, is entitled to exemption under Section 10(20). The inadvertent error in claiming deduction under Section 57 should not lead to denial of exemption, especially when it was allowed in prior and subsequent assessment years.

DINESH VISANJI RUPAREL,SANGLI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SANGLI

ITA 115/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act as it did not state the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

BASHIR SAHEBKHAN PATHAN,PUNE vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

ITA 3126/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

BASHIR SAHEBKHAN PATHAN,PUNE vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 3125/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeals on merits.

SHERKHAN BABUKHAN PATHAN,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 3101/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal, considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee, set aside the assessment order. The Assessing Officer was directed to adjudicate the matter de novo after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

JIGNESH KANJIBHAI SHAH GALA,PUNE vs DCIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

ITA 3035/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that if a property owned by a partner is used by the partnership firm for its business, no notional rental income is taxable in the hands of the partner. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions with similar facts.

INDIA KAWASAKI MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 2886/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Dismissed

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and, noting no objection from the Department, dismissed the appeal as infructuous because it was a duplicate filing.

PARASHARAM JANU KAMBLE,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1865/PUN/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

ARUN SATYAWAN THAKUR,RAIGAD vs ITO WARD-1, PANVEL

ITA 1798/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is not taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF.

PANDURANG GOPAL THAKUR,RAIGAD vs ITO WARD-4, PANVEL

ITA 1797/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is not taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Ghanshyam HUF.

TULSHIRAM RATAN PATIL,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 1883/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

NARSINH ASSOCIATES PROMOTERS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs DGIT(INVESTIGATION), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2380/PUN/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) subject to payment of costs.

SHRI EKVIRA SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 596/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of lack of technical knowledge was factually incorrect, as the President, who is a legal professional, had electronically filed the appeal before the CIT(A) and provided an email ID. The Tribunal found the delay to be inordinate and without sufficient cause, citing the assessee's past non-compliance and negligence.

JUI NARAYAN SALGAONKAR,SINDUDHURG vs ITO , KUDAL

ITA 1073/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54F of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- on 31.03.2016 and entered into an agreement to sell on 04.05.2016, which was mentioned in the final sale deed dated 28.02.2025. Following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in DCIT vs. Kruti Lalitkumar Jain, the Tribunal opined that merely because the sale deed was executed after a period of two years, the assessee should not be denied the benefit of deduction under section 54F. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee concerning the section 54F exemption. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 33,00,000/- for road construction expenses, the Tribunal did not explicitly provide a separate finding but implicitly allowed the appeal by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order, which had upheld the AO's disallowance. The grounds related to interest and penalty were also implicitly allowed by allowing the appeal.

HANUMANT SHIVAJI MARKAD, PUNE,PUNE vs ITO, WRD-8(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2366/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment was flawed as he did not obtain copies of the sale documents and thus failed to realize it was a single transaction. The AO also incorrectly assumed the entire sale value was income, ignoring the capital gains calculation.

ALIFCLOUD IT CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

ITA 2631/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed12 Jun 2026AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal held that there is no condition in Section 80-IAC requiring an assessee to complete three consecutive years before claiming the deduction. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.