Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Approved resolution plans extinguish unsubmitted pre-approval tax claims, preventing later recovery outside the insolvency process and preserving a cl...
Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment and permits working capital adjustment, while APA margins cannot govern non-covered years...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
881 to 900 of 95999 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
