ITAT Pune Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal found that the payment exceeding the purchase consideration was made through banking channels for additional works and was reflected in the bank statements. Therefore, the addition for alleged on-money was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. If the assessee proves the gratuity was paid before the due date, the claim should be allowed. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the details of payments made through Axis Bank credit card, SBI credit card, and savings bank accounts were not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide in accordance with law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's claim of being a non-resident with foreign earnings used for investment, decided to provide another opportunity. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reassessment notice was invalid because the approval for issuing it beyond four years was obtained from the Joint Commissioner instead of the prescribed higher authority as per Section 151.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and was caused by floods and the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not adequately given an opportunity to submit the required information and directed the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application de novo. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a previous Tribunal order for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. It was acknowledged that the appeal was inadvertently filed before the ITAT instead of the appropriate appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on a technical ground of selecting the wrong sub-clause, without any adverse finding on the genuineness of the assessee's activities, was not sustainable. The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment notice and order, holding that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision in Karan Maheshwari's case, which found similar allegations against JM Financial Asset Management Limited and held that the assessee's participation in sham transactions was not proven.

The Tribunal found that the estimated business income addition at 8% was on the higher side, considering the assessee's role as a commission agent with nominal profit margins. The Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the estimated income to 4% of bank account credits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions for a valid long-term capital loss transaction, as purchases and sales were made on a recognized stock exchange through banking channels and Demat accounts. The company was actively traded with fluctuating share prices.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on a technical ground of selecting the wrong sub-clause, without any adverse finding on the genuineness of the assessee's activities, was not sustainable. The Tribunal allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank was justified in not deducting TDS due to the binding interim directions of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the bank cannot be treated as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence, including refunds to customers and amounts offered to tax in subsequent years. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the applications without providing a proper opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and allowed the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it. It set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and directed a de-novo consideration of the application, providing the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate its case.

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 with evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and to allow the filing of necessary documents and additional grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and did not provide the required details regarding the property sale. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made an assessment based on available information.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had shown sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the penalty issue back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, allowing the assessee to present documents and grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the applications without providing a proper opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and allowed the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the delay was not intentional and was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, and the delay was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It then restored the issue of deduction under Section 80P to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide necessary documents.