Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
