The ruling held that incomplete documentation or minor deficiencies cannot be sole grounds for denial of registration. It emphasized that such issues may be examined during assessment proceedings.
The case examined whether bank deposits could be taxed as unexplained credits. The Tribunal held that Section 68 applies only to entries in books of account, leading to deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that cash payments for land purchase cannot be disallowed under Section 40A(3) if not claimed as expenditure. Since the amount was capital in nature, the addition was deleted. The ruling clarifies the scope of disallowance provisions.
The case involved an addition based on AIR information regarding a property transaction. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the assessee’s documentary evidence remained unchallenged by the department.
The Tribunal emphasized that documentary evidence including bank statements and lender confirmations sufficiently explained the disputed credits. It held that no addition for unexplained money was warranted.
While condoning procedural delay, the Tribunal emphasized fairness and allowed substantial relief in a capital gains computation dispute. It directed recalculation of indexed cost after permitting 80% of claimed improvement expenses.
The Tribunal held that when sales are undisputed and books of account remain intact, purchase additions require stronger evidence. In the absence of contrary material, the ₹35.48 lakh disallowance was deleted.
Although stamp law generally places registration costs on buyers, the Tribunal held that parties may contract otherwise. Since the sale deed clearly assigned the burden to the seller, the ₹5.47 lakh disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal reversed additions made towards alleged suppressed rent and bogus salary expenses. It emphasized factual consistency, business necessity, and absence of tax avoidance in granting relief to the assessee.
Tribunal ruled that promotional scheme expenses were properly accrued and supported by evidence. Disallowance of ₹16.22 lakh was deleted, allowing assessee’s appeal.
