ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2026

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the interest of justice, restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption). The assessee was granted one final opportunity to submit the required details to the satisfaction of the CIT(Exemption).

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54B of the Act. The Tribunal observed that capital gains are deemed to have been earned on the transfer of land as per Section 2(47) of the Act, even if registration of the sale deed is not necessary. Consequently, if the transfer is complete for the seller, the purchase is also complete for the buyer. The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with the conditions of Section 54B by utilizing the sale consideration from the sale of agricultural land for purchasing other agricultural land within the prescribed period. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Learned CIT(A) and allowed the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction under Section 54B. The issue regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 was implicitly decided in favour of the assessee by allowing the appeal on merits, although not explicitly discussed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing certain grounds and not following judicial precedents. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-computation, considering the assessee's submissions, legal provisions, and judicial precedents.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the issue regarding the addition for area development fund was debatable, having reached the Supreme Court, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the issue regarding the addition for area development fund was debatable, having reached the Supreme Court, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Consequently, the issue of the addition was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to present all necessary details.

The Tribunal held that since the issue regarding the addition for area development fund was debatable, having reached the Supreme Court, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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, 1961, following previous ITAT decisions.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

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 delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The facts of the instant appeals were identical to previous years where similar grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The facts of the instant appeals were identical to previous years where similar grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits, finding that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to prove the source of the funds or that they were accounted for by the partnership firm.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and does not have the power to dismiss it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) must provide an opportunity for hearing and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the mandatory notice under Section 148 was never served on the assessee. Consequently, the reasons recorded for reopening were also found to be insufficient.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide concrete evidence for commission expenses, a complete disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 30% of the gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to file separate appeals for each intimation order under Section 200A. Since consolidated appeals were filed, the current appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was required to file separate appeals for each intimation order under Section 200A. Since consolidated appeals were filed, the current appeals were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove any cash payment by the assessee. The document relied upon by the AO did not mention any cash payment and lacked evidentiary value.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal found that the notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email ID, not the one provided by the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The facts of the instant appeals were identical to previous years where similar grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on documents from a search in a different group's case, which did not directly implicate the assessee. The Tribunal found no documentary evidence to support the claim of cash receipt by the assessee and noted that the purchaser's affidavit denying cash payments was not rebutted.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and therefore void. Following its own precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the non-compliance before the CIT(A) due to the non-receipt of notices. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow for de-novo adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative credit society from deposits made with banks, out of its business income, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The AO was directed to delete the addition.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of long-term capital gains computation to the AO. This was to allow the assessee to furnish additional evidence for correct calculation of LTCG.