The Tribunal applied common sense to accept that some jewellery belonged to visiting relatives. It granted partial deletion, stressing that complete relief requires corroborative evidence.
The tribunal rejected demand raised solely due to Form 26AS mismatch caused by employer non-deposit of TDS. The key principle is that employees cannot be penalised for failures beyond their control.
The Court set aside a 3.5% TDS certificate after the PE finding relied upon by the Revenue was overturned by the ITAT. The earlier 1.5% rate was restored due to lack of legal foundation.
While search proceedings were still pending, the Court permitted release of seized jewellery and cash after petitioners deposited amounts against possible tax demand. No view was taken on merits of explanations.
The Supreme Court examined whether shares received on amalgamation can be taxed as business income when held as stock-in-trade. It ruled that tax arises only if the substitution results in a real, commercially realizable gain, not a mere statutory replacement.
The issue was denial of regular 80G approval due to an inadvertent filing under an incorrect clause. The Tribunal held that a procedural mistake should not bar substantive adjudication.
The issue was whether total purchases could be treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The Tribunal held that only the profit element is taxable in a small retail trading business.
he revision targeted 80G deduction and interest under TDS/TCS provisions. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined both issues and no prejudice was shown.
The assessee challenged a large section 14A disallowance on procedural and factual grounds. The Tribunal upheld satisfaction but ordered recomputation after excluding mutual fund investments.
Holding that there was no real delay, the Tribunal directed grant of section 80G approval. The decision stresses practical and reasonable interpretation of filing timelines.
