CAAR ruled that multi-functional PCR instruments cannot be treated as spectrometers where optical detection is only one part of a larger analytical workflow, leading to classification under the residual optical instruments heading
The ITAT held that income appearing in Form 26AS cannot be taxed unless actually received when the assessee follows cash accounting. The ruling confirms that 26AS entries alone cannot justify additions.
The Court held that violation of the ₹20,000 cash-loan limit under tax law attracts only penalty and does not void the debt. Cheque-bounce prosecutions under Section 138 NI Act remain valid despite such breaches.
Delhi ITAT remands the case to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after ex-parte dismissal. Tribunal emphasized that sufficient hearing opportunity must be granted before rejecting appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the addition because the assessee could not prove the creditor’s identity, financial capacity, or the genuineness of the ₹50 lakh credit. Defective confirmation, NIL income of the creditor, and absence of source details weighed against the assessee. The ruling emphasizes that Section 68 requires clear, credible evidence.
The Tribunal held that deductions for donations cannot be denied due to later retrospective withdrawal of approval. Genuine donations made when the donee was approved retain tax benefits.
ITAT upheld deletion of ₹3.31 crore addition under Section 69, noting full disclosure of foreign assets and sufficient income. Revenue cannot levy additions where investments are legitimate and documented.
ITAT upheld rejection of books under Section 145(3) due to incomplete records but reduced estimated net profit from 8% to 2%. Historical profit trends guided a fairer assessment.
ITAT Delhi remands addition of ₹78.12 lakh under Section 68, allowing assessee to prove lessees’ agricultural use. Proper verification and opportunity are essential before denying Section 10(1) exemption.
Mumbai ITAT permits deduction under Section 57(iii) for ₹30.90 lakh interest paid on housing loan deployed to earn interest income. The ruling confirms that loan purpose, not its label, determines eligibility.
