Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
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 
