The tribunal held that disallowance of weighted R&D deduction is unsustainable when valid Form 3CM approval is on record. It emphasized that sufficient documentary evidence before the AO supports the taxpayer’s claim.
The case addressed whether cancellation for non-filing of returns could be reversed. The court allowed revocation subject to filing returns and payment of tax, interest, and penalty.
The case examined whether taxpayer funds used for security could be challenged through a PIL. The court dismissed the plea, holding that it lacked genuine public interest and was based on insufficient material.
The issue was whether restricted classification of sugar disqualified exporters from incentives. The Court ruled that conditional restrictions allowing permitted exports do not negate RoDTEP eligibility.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions as the AO failed to provide evidence or conduct independent verification. The ruling highlights the need for substantiated findings in reassessment cases.
The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO after finding that the allowance of expenses was based on unverified claims of evidence submission. It directed fresh verification and adjudication.
The case examined whether late submission of Form 67 can deny FTC. The tribunal held that filing before assessment completion is sufficient and directed allowance of full credit.
The assessee explained cash deposits through corresponding withdrawals supported by books and bank records. The Tribunal held that such documented transactions cannot be treated as unexplained income.
The case examined prolonged pendency of an income tax appeal. The court directed the assessee to file a reply within two weeks and allowed disposal even without it if non-compliance continues.
The Tribunal held that weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) cannot exceed the amount certified by DSIR after the 2016 amendment, leading to disallowance of excess R&D claims.
