https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768621 ITAT Delhi held that AO exceeded jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without following prescribed procedures for conversion to complete scrutiny. The tribunal found both AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing short term capital loss on share warrant forfeiture, as the issue was not part of reasons for limited scrutiny. Following Madras HC precedent in Padmavathi case, no additions could be made outside limited scrutiny scope without proper approval from higher authorities. Assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Apr 2025 08:32:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768621 ITAT Delhi held that AO exceeded jurisdiction by making additions beyond the scope of limited scrutiny without following prescribed procedures for conversion to complete scrutiny. The tribunal found both AO and CIT(A) erred in disallowing short term capital loss on share warrant forfeiture, as the issue was not part of reasons for limited scrutiny. Following Madras HC precedent in Padmavathi case, no additions could be made outside limited scrutiny scope without proper approval from higher authorities. Assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768621