ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2026

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 restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC, directing them to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee was cautioned against seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to re-decide the application after considering the copy of the regular registration certificate already provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's guidelines on substantial justice over technicalities. Both the quantum addition and the consequential penalty were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order was bad in law because it was based on an assessment order that was void-ab-initio. Since the original assessment order was invalid, it could not be subjected to revisionary proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's guidelines on substantial justice over technicalities. Both the quantum addition and the consequential penalty were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal regarding exemption and that principles of natural justice required a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to an incorrect email ID warrants consideration. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details on an appointed date, without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. Due to the assessee's "recalcitrant attitude" in not submitting details promptly upon learning of the proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is levied on the assessee, payable before the next hearing date before the CIT(A). The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) rejected the application without proper consideration and adherence to natural justice. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case with evidence before the CIT (Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking his revisionary powers under section 263. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from those where penalty proceedings were not initiated at all. Here, the Assessing Officer (AO) had initiated penalty proceedings under an incorrect section (271AAC(1) instead of 270A). The Tribunal reasoned that an incorrect application of law, such as invoking the wrong penalty provision, renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Revenue cannot be left without a remedy due to the AO's mistake. The Tribunal found that the AO admittedly invoked a wrong section for penalty initiation, thus justifying the PCIT's revisionary action. The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on various decisions distinguishable as they pertained to situations where no penalty was initiated, unlike the current case of initiation under a wrong provision. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the PCIT. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to an incorrect email ID warrants consideration. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details on an appointed date, without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. Due to the assessee's "recalcitrant attitude" in not submitting details promptly upon learning of the proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is levied on the assessee, payable before the next hearing date before the CIT(A). The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to an incorrect email ID warrants consideration. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details on an appointed date, without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. Due to the assessee's "recalcitrant attitude" in not submitting details promptly upon learning of the proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is levied on the assessee, payable before the next hearing date before the CIT(A). The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to an incorrect email ID warrants consideration. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details on an appointed date, without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. Due to the assessee's "recalcitrant attitude" in not submitting details promptly upon learning of the proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is levied on the assessee, payable before the next hearing date before the CIT(A). The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that while it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to an incorrect email ID warrants consideration. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details on an appointed date, without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. Due to the assessee's "recalcitrant attitude" in not submitting details promptly upon learning of the proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is levied on the assessee, payable before the next hearing date before the CIT(A). The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without obtaining mandatory permission to convert it to complete scrutiny. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A)/NFAC was not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10 had been condoned by the CIT(Exemption) under Section 119(2)(b). The CIT(A)/NFAC had ignored this condonation order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16 was bad in law. Consequently, the consequential assessment order was deemed void-ab-initio.

The Tribunal held that while it is an admitted fact that the assessee did not produce sufficient documents before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, the assessee's submission regarding notices being sent to an incorrect email ID warrants consideration. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A). The assessee is granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case by filing requisite details on an appointed date, without seeking adjournments. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh based on facts and law. Due to the assessee's "recalcitrant attitude" in not submitting details promptly upon learning of the proceedings, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is levied on the assessee, payable before the next hearing date before the CIT(A). The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. For AY 2016-17, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the rejection of additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding no infirmity in their reasoning for sustaining the additions and penalty. The Tribunal noted the lack of appearance by the assessee and the substantial delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding no infirmity in their reasoning for sustaining the additions and penalty. The Tribunal noted the lack of appearance by the assessee and the substantial delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the insurance policy was not a Keyman Insurance Policy and the benefits were not payable to the assessee company. Since the premium was not added as perquisites in the hands of the directors, the expenditure was not allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E are leviable only from June 1, 2015, as the mechanism for levying such fees was introduced in Section 200A from that date. Therefore, fees for the period prior to June 1, 2015, should be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. For AY 2016-17, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the rejection of additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the insurance policy was not a Keyman Insurance Policy and the benefits were not payable to the assessee company. Since the premium was not added as perquisites in the hands of the directors, the expenditure was not allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding no infirmity in their reasoning for sustaining the additions and penalty. The Tribunal noted the lack of appearance by the assessee and the substantial delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the tax audit report was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, such as the death of their father and difficulty in finding an accountant. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause for the delay.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from funds deposited with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The AO was directed to delete the addition made to the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that providing a corporate guarantee to an associated enterprise constitutes an international transaction. It further held that income from such a guarantee is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IAB(10) as it is not part of the SEZ development activity.

The Tribunal held that the insurance policy was not a Keyman Insurance Policy and the benefits were not payable to the assessee company. Since the premium was not added as perquisites in the hands of the directors, the expenditure was not allowable as a business expenditure under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. For AY 2016-17, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the rejection of additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to salary income and FDR purchases, finding sufficient evidence or prior acceptance. However, for the addition related to a reportable account balance, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the non-filing of Form 10B is a procedural defect and not a condition precedent for exemption. Following various judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider the belatedly filed Form 10B and allow the exemption under Section 11 if found in order.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A was not leviable as the assessee had disclosed all material facts and offered a bona fide explanation, satisfying the conditions of section 270A(6)(a). For the penalty under section 271B, the Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report due to director disputes and pandemic, thus deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit. This was based on the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal partly allowed appeals concerning additions for unexplained cash credits, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit rate of 2% on deposits. However, appeals challenging the penalty under Section 271B for delayed audit reports were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee knowingly claimed bogus deductions despite being aware of their illegality, thus concealing income. The penalty levied by the AO was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 458 days. Applying a stricter approach due to the significant delay, the Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be vague and unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit. This was based on the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit. This was based on the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) with directions to condone the delay and decide the matters on merit. This was based on the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, citing Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption) to grant one opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 80AC read with Section 143(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible if the return of income is furnished after the due date. Therefore, the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the interest income of Rs. 8,86,638/- earned from the Raigad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The reasoning was based on several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex bank, the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court in Vavveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., and the Kerala High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. These decisions established that interest earned by a cooperative credit society, engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, from funds deposited with a cooperative bank or any bank, is considered business income and is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal found the facts of the present case to be identical to those in the cited precedents. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the addition. The issue of alternative deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was not separately decided as the primary claim under 80P(2)(a)(i) was allowed.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative credit society from funds deposited with banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a). This decision followed various High Court judgments that distinguished the Totgars case and affirmed the eligibility of such interest income.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable if the recipient has offered the interest income to tax and paid taxes thereon, even if Form 26A was not filed correctly. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC was a strict compliance matter.

The Tribunal partly allowed appeals concerning additions for unexplained cash credits, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt a profit rate of 2% on deposits. However, appeals challenging the penalty under Section 271B for delayed audit reports were dismissed.