ITAT Pune Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the applications mechanically. It found that the delay in filing the 80G application was procedural and not deliberate, and that the assessee had made efforts to rectify the issues regarding withdrawals. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents allowing condonation of delay in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the AO travelled beyond the reasons for reopening the assessment. Since no fresh notice under Section 148 was issued for the new issue, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as invalid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate the source of cash deposits with primary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with evidence. The CIT was directed to re-examine the applications de novo.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate the cash deposits with primary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation to be unrealistic and lacking consideration of supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimation to be unrealistic and lacking consideration of supporting documents. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for regular registration under Section 80G. It held that the delay was procedural and not deliberate, and that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the rejection by the CIT (Exemption) was mechanical and that the assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong assessment year. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and allowed the assessee an opportunity to present their case with evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that penalty should be levied for only one instance of non-compliance, not two, considering the notices sought the same information.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the ex-parte rejection by the CIT(Exemption), decided to provide the assessee with another opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return and paid taxes prior to the notice under Section 148, there was no underreporting of income. The penalty levied under Section 270A was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return and paid taxes prior to the notice under Section 148, there was no underreporting of income. The penalty levied under Section 270A was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was solely commission-based and did not exceed the threshold limit for mandatory audit under Section 44AB. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was erroneous.

The Tribunal decided on the grounds as follows: Ground A-1 regarding the validity of the assessment order was dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee. For Ground No. 4, concerning the inclusion/exclusion of comparables, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground partly. Specifically, it directed the inclusion of Maveric System Ltd. and CES Ltd. as comparables, following precedents from ITAT Mumbai and ITAT Bangalore respectively. It upheld the rejection of Data Collection Infotech (India) Ltd. as functionally non-comparable, citing a previous ITAT decision. For Ground No. 5, which dealt with the rejection of certain comparables, the Tribunal allowed it partly, directing the inclusion of Kcube Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and Toxsl Technologies Private Limited as functionally comparable. The Tribunal noted that Batchmaster Software Pvt. Ltd. was correctly rejected due to trading activity and lack of segmental accounts. All other grounds were dismissed as un-adjudicated. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application due to an inadvertent error in selecting the wrong sub-clause was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that such procedural defects should not be fatal to the application and an opportunity to rectify the mistake should be given.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and that a pragmatic approach should have been taken. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the issue to the AO for examining the CASS reasons. They found no reason to interfere as the assessee did not participate in assessment proceedings and the AO had not examined the specific issue.

The Tribunal, noting the ex-parte rejection and the need for natural justice, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documentation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and held that penalty should be levied for only one instance of non-compliance, not two, considering the notices sought the same information.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as the grievance had become academic due to the final assessment order resulting in no addition. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as the grievance had become academic due to the final assessment order resulting in no addition. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeals as the grievance had become academic due to the final assessment order. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not made sufficient inquiries or called for additional details on specific disputed issues (deductions under Section 36(1)(viia) and Section 80G) during the denovo adjudication. Therefore, the PCIT's order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires concealment or inaccurate particulars in the income tax return itself. Disclosure made during survey proceedings, even if prompted by the survey, does not automatically attract penalty if the income is subsequently offered in the return.