The Tribunal set aside a Section 69C addition where subcontract payments were backed by bills, accounts, and TDS compliance. Non-filing of return by the recipient was held insufficient to brand the expense as bogus.
The High Court held that the Tribunal erred by not examining the respondent’s contradictory positions on ownership and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that leave encashment received on resignation qualifies for exemption under Section 10(10AA). Subsequent employment in the same year does not bar the relief.
Holding that procedural defects should not defeat substantive rights, the Tribunal restored the appeal. The case was remanded for reconsideration after granting opportunity.
The Tribunal held that enhancing profit to 10% without comparables was arbitrary. Past accepted margins around 6% had to guide estimation. Income was directed to be computed at 6%.
The Tribunal clarified that precedents cannot replace factual analysis under TNMM. High-turnover mismatches justified exclusion, but other comparables required verification. The ruling underscores disciplined TP benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that once delay in filing the return is condoned under Section 119(2)(b), denial of Section 80P solely for late filing is unsustainable. The deduction was directed to be allowed.
The Tribunal held that a landowner under a JDA cannot be forced to adopt the percentage completion method merely because the developer follows it. Consistent use of the project completion method was upheld as legally valid.
Both 12AB and 80G applications were rejected without adequate reasoning or opportunity. The Tribunal emphasized mandatory compliance with due process. The cases were sent back for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening beyond four years must be granted by the specified higher authority. Approval by a Joint Commissioner was found incompetent and void. Consequently, the reassessment was struck down as without jurisdiction.
