Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was held to operate distinctly from provision-based deduction under section 36(1)(viia), and the proviso was applied only to prevent double deduction; on the facts already accepted in earlier years, no duplication was shown, so the disallowance of bad debts written off was deleted. The Tribunal also held that earlier coordinate bench rulings remained binding despite pending High Court appeals in the absence of any stay or reversal, and the Revenue's challenge failed. On the amortised lease premium issue, the Tribunal applied section 158A because an identical question of law was already pending before the High Court, and directed that the final High Court decision be applied to the years in appeal.
Deduction under section 36(1)(vii) was held to operate distinctly from provision-based deduction under section 36(1)(viia), and the proviso was applied only to prevent double deduction; on the facts already accepted in earlier years, no duplication was shown, so the disallowance of bad debts written off was deleted. The Tribunal also held that earlier coordinate bench rulings remained binding despite pending High Court appeals in the absence of any stay or reversal, and the Revenue's challenge failed. On the amortised lease premium issue, the Tribunal applied section 158A because an identical question of law was already pending before the High Court, and directed that the final High Court decision be applied to the years in appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.