The Tribunal affirmed restricting Section 14A disallowance to the actual exempt income earned. It also held the Finance Act, 2022 explanation to be prospective, protecting taxpayers for earlier years.
The dispute involved additions made despite small variations between agreement value and stamp duty value. The Tribunal ruled that differences within 10% are immune from Section 43CA, granting relief for genuine transactions.
The ruling clarifies that CSR-related disallowance under Section 37(1) applies only from AY 2015-16 onwards. For earlier years, expenses with a business nexus remain deductible.
The issue was whether CBDT jewellery instructions could shield bullion found during a search from taxation. The Tribunal held that the instruction applies only to jewellery, not bullion, and upheld the Section 69A addition.
The issue was whether large cash deposits during demonetisation could be taxed as unexplained under Section 69A. The Tribunal held that when deposits are backed by audited books, sales records, and accepted VAT returns, no addition can survive.
The issue was whether a short delay in registering the new house defeats Section 54 relief. The Tribunal held that substantial compliance within the prescribed period is sufficient and allowed the exemption in full.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on a survey statement, without corroborative evidence, are unsustainable. Development expenses were largely allowed, with only a reasonable estimated disallowance retained.
The issue was whether bank cash deposits could be treated as unexplained despite accepted cash advances. The Tribunal held that telescoping applies, deleting additions to avoid double taxation of the same source.
Cash deposits during demonetisation were held to be business receipts already recorded as sales in audited books. The tribunal ruled that taxing the same receipts again under Section 68 amounts to double taxation.
The Revenue challenged the appellate authoritys decision to remand an ex-parte order. The Tribunal ruled that the remand was lawful and well within statutory appellate powers.
