The Jodhpur ITAT held that deduction under Section 80GGC cannot be denied merely on allegations against a political party in the absence of evidence showing any benefit returned to the donor.
The ruling emphasizes that undisclosed business receipts and stock arising from an existing business cannot automatically be characterized as unexplained income. In the absence of evidence pointing to any other source, the income should be assessed under normal business provisions.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and books of account are not rejected, the entire amount of disputed purchases cannot be added to income. It directed the Assessing Officer to tax only the profit element embedded in such purchases following settled judicial principles.
The ITAT Pune held that the CIT(A)/NFAC cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits as mandated under Section 250(6). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that section 50 merely prescribes a special method for computing gains on depreciable assets and does not convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset. Consequently, long-term capital losses were permitted to be set off against such gains under section 74.
The Tribunal ruled that the guideline value recorded in a registered document is not conclusive for computing capital gains if the assessee proves that a higher amount was genuinely paid. The decision underscores the importance of substantive evidence over mere recitals in the sale deed.
The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to properly apply the principles governing section 80P deductions relating to nominal members, statutory deposits, and co-operative society investments. The matter was remanded for reconsideration in accordance with settled law.
Addition of ₹90 lakh made under section 69A towards alleged cash payment for purchase of property as well as the addition made under section 69C on account of alleged unaccounted purchases was deleted as additions based solely on third-party documents, without independent corroboration or evidence directly linking the transactions to assessee were not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that donations to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund made towards CSR obligations are specifically excluded under section 80G, while no similar embargo exists for other eligible institutions. Consequently, the assessee’s claim for deduction was allowed in full.
The Tribunal emphasized that detailed quantitative reconciliation and accepted export realizations carried substantial evidentiary value in the diamond trade. In the absence of discrepancies in stock records or sales, the alleged bogus purchase addition was deleted in full.
