Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The ITAT held that the AO exceeded the limited scope of scrutiny authorized for examining cash deposits during demonetization without obtaining requisite PCIT approval, violating Instruction No.225/402/2018/ITA.II. The AO's addition under section 68 was quashed as the assessee provided a reconciliation of bank credits which the CIT(A) neither challenged nor disproved. The CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition based on discrepancies unrelated to the limited scrutiny parameters and failed to consider that cash deposits during demonetization were minimal. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,309/-, finding the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders unsustainable, and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT held that the AO exceeded the limited scope of scrutiny authorized for examining cash deposits during demonetization without obtaining requisite PCIT approval, violating Instruction No.225/402/2018/ITA.II. The AO's addition under section 68 was quashed as the assessee provided a reconciliation of bank credits which the CIT(A) neither challenged nor disproved. The CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition based on discrepancies unrelated to the limited scrutiny parameters and failed to consider that cash deposits during demonetization were minimal. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,309/-, finding the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders unsustainable, and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
