https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774225 ITAT Delhi held that AO exceeded limited scrutiny parameters by making addition u/s 36(1)(iii) for inadmissible interest without proper justification. The phrase "high interest expenditure" in limited scrutiny instructions only applied to expenses related to new capital or fixed asset additions, which was not present in this case. CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2016 mandating adherence to limited scrutiny conditions is binding on AOs, who cannot travel beyond specified parameters without converting to complete scrutiny with proper approval. Following HC precedents in Crystal Phosphates Ltd and Weilburger Coatings cases, ITAT directed deletion of the impugned addition. Appeal allowed. en-us Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774225 ITAT Delhi held that AO exceeded limited scrutiny parameters by making addition u/s 36(1)(iii) for inadmissible interest without proper justification. The phrase "high interest expenditure" in limited scrutiny instructions only applied to expenses related to new capital or fixed asset additions, which was not present in this case. CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2016 mandating adherence to limited scrutiny conditions is binding on AOs, who cannot travel beyond specified parameters without converting to complete scrutiny with proper approval. Following HC precedents in Crystal Phosphates Ltd and Weilburger Coatings cases, ITAT directed deletion of the impugned addition. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774225