ITAT Hyderabad recent decision dated 28.10.2025 : Prathiba Educational Society v ITO (ITA No 1424/Hyd/2025) :
Held that:
1. Section 69A cannot be applied where cash deposits are fully traceable to earlier withdrawals recorded in the books of account.
2️. A mere time-gap between cash withdrawal and redeposit does not justify treating the cash as unexplained money.
3️. The cash book reflected sufficient cash balance available as on the date of deposit, and the Revenue did not dispute the earlier withdrawal of ₹84 lakhs.
4️. The department failed to bring any contrary evidence to show that the withdrawn cash was utilised elsewhere or was not available at the time of deposit.
5️. Since the source of cash was satisfactorily explained and recorded in regular books, there was no basis for invoking Section 69A.
Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qw8-1dDurCnesldgyyJBEqiiIe7bdEB0/view?usp=sharing
ITAT Pune recent decision dated 23.07.2025 : Karia Builders v ITO (ITA No 2401/PUNE/2024) :
Held that:
1. Penalty u/s 271D is unsustainable if the asst. order in the course of which the penalty proceedings are initiated, itself is shown to be bad in law.
2. Validity of asst proceedings can be challenged during penalty appellate proceedings
3. Notice u/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 issued for AY 2017-18 after three years from end of AY 2017-18, by obtaining approval from Pr CiT instead of obtaining approval from Pr CCIT, is bad in law.
Link: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/penalty-u-s-271d-unsustainable-assessment-invalid-itat-pune.html
ITAT Pune, decision dated 26.07.2024 : Ganga Electricals v. PCIT [ITA No 215/PUNE/2022]
Held that:
1. When the AO had conducted detailed enquiry regarding source of cash deposits made during demonetisation period, and taken a possible view, then the assessment order passed by AO, which might be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, could not be termed as erroneous. Hence exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 by PCIT is not justified.
2. Where the AO has conducted enquiries in the original asst proceedings, then in order to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263, the Pr. CIT was legally bound to conduct enquiries himself and examine the details to come to a definite conclusion that view taken by AO was erroneous. In absence of any such verification done by PCIT, the PCIT could not have set aside the asst merely by directing the AO to conduct asst afresh. Thus, revision order u/s 263 was not sustainable in law
Link of Decision: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/pcit-revise-u-s-263-ao-due-enquiry-demonetisation-cash-deposits.html
ITAT Pune decision dated 19.03.2025, ABIL Realty Pvt Ltd v ITO [ITA No 446/PUNE/2024].
Held that:
It is the settled proposition of law that the CBDT circulars are binding on the department and it has to be strictly followed by the officers of the department.
The AO cannot be permitted to travel beyond the issues for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny without taking mandatory permission from the concerned PCIT or Pr.CCIT.
Link of Decision: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/ao-limited-scrutiny-scope-mandatory-approval.html
ITAT Pune : Decision dated 28/06/2024 : Sunil Ramnarayan Mantri v DCIT, Jalgaon [ITA No 91 & 92/PUNE/2024]:
Held that:
1. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the form of evidence.
2. Even if a house property is vacant for the whole of the current year, but it is let out in earlier years, then benefit of vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c) must be allowed and no addition towards notional rent can be made by applying section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Vivek Jain v ACIT [337 ITR 74 (AP)] distinguished.
Link: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/notional-rent-addition-property-earlier-vacant-year.html
ITAT Pune, Decision dated 21.01.2025 : ITO v Sharad Anandrao Deore [ITA No 996/PUNE/2023]
Held that: Estimation of profit @ 8% in case of civil contractors undertaking contract work for a government department, by taking provisions of section 44AD of the Income Tax Act as a parameter, is justifiable. Depts appeals dismissed.
ITAT Delhi : : Decision dated 09/08/2024 : AviaXpert Pvt Ltd [ITA No 87/Delhi/ 2024]
Held that:
1. Rectification Order passed u/s 154 by CPC by making disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) towards employees contribution to PF/ ESIC without issuing any prior intimation/ notice as mandated u/s 154(3) is unsustainable in law.
2. At the time of passing the rectification order u/s 154,, the issue regarding disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) towards employees contribution to PF / ESIC deposited before due date u/s 139(1) was a debatable issue and hence, the above disallowance was outside the scope of mistake apparent from record as contemplated u/s 154.
ITAT Pune, Decision dated 02.03.2023 : JCIT v Runwal Realtors Pvt Ltd [ITA No 124/PUNE/2018]
Held that: Amount waived off by Investors i.e. Holders of Floating Rate Notes (FRNs) issued by Assessee Company to raise funds through External Commercial Borrowings (ECB), resulting into redemption of FRNs at a discounted rate below face value, is not taxable as income u/s 28(i), 28(iv) or under section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Link: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/waiver-loan-business-income-taxable-u-s-28-i-income-tax-act-itat.html
ITAT Delhi : Decision dated 24/09/2024 : DCIT v Swapna Mohan [ITA No 708/Delhi/2019]
Held that: No addition can be made only on the basis of post dated cheque in name of assessee seized during search action u/s 132 in the absence of any corroborative material brought on record by the AO to demonstrate nexus or link of such seized PDC with undisclosed income earned by the assessee.