The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 80JJAA cannot be denied merely because Form 10DA was accepted late when it was uploaded before the due date and available on record before return processing. The ruling treats delayed acceptance as a procedural lapse, not a substantive default.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot apply FMV for capital gains and book value for business income on the same converted asset. Section 45(2) mandates consistent valuation to prevent artificial inflation of taxable income.
The Tribunal upheld disallowance of political donation deductions where the assessee failed to prove genuineness and the transactions were linked to suspected accommodation entries. The ruling reinforces the burden on taxpayers to substantiate claims under section 80GGC with credible evidence.
The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that the addition was made solely on Investigation Wing inputs without proper verification or disclosure of details to the taxpayer.
The ruling clarified that increased expenditure in one year, by itself, does not permit partial disallowance. The Assessing Officer must demonstrate lack of business purpose or genuineness.
The Tribunal held that adverse regulatory findings alone cannot justify tax additions when client code modification trades are already recorded in the books and profits are disclosed.
The tribunal held that an appeal cannot be rejected merely due to a clerical mistake in mentioning the wrong section in Form No. 35. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits, reinforcing the duty of appellate authorities to adjudicate substantively.
The issue concerned taxation of alleged on-money from sale of land. The Tribunal held that once the land was agricultural and outside section 2(14), capital gains and on-money additions could not survive.
Revenue argued that control and fixed hours created employment. The Tribunal ruled that such controls ensure discipline and contract enforcement, not employment. Result: TDS under Section 194J sustained.
The Revenue treated cash deposits as unexplained under Section 69A despite matching withdrawals and opening cash balance. The Tribunal ruled that redeposit of available cash cannot be taxed as unexplained income.
