Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 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 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
