https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784714 The dominant issues were whether the AO exceeded jurisdiction by examining loan credits in a limited scrutiny, and whether a loan could be added as unexplained cash credit under s.68. On jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that scrutiny reasons expressly covered "Investments/Advances/Loans," and examination of loans fell within limited scrutiny; the ejusdem generis argument was rejected because the terms were used disjunctively, not as a single genus, so the jurisdictional ground was dismissed. On s.68, the Tribunal held the assessee discharged its onus by furnishing requisite particulars, the lender's existence and capacity were accepted by the Revenue in its own assessment, and subsequent repayment attracted no adverse inference; the s.68 addition was deleted. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:25:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784714 The dominant issues were whether the AO exceeded jurisdiction by examining loan credits in a limited scrutiny, and whether a loan could be added as unexplained cash credit under s.68. On jurisdiction, the Tribunal held that scrutiny reasons expressly covered "Investments/Advances/Loans," and examination of loans fell within limited scrutiny; the ejusdem generis argument was rejected because the terms were used disjunctively, not as a single genus, so the jurisdictional ground was dismissed. On s.68, the Tribunal held the assessee discharged its onus by furnishing requisite particulars, the lender's existence and capacity were accepted by the Revenue in its own assessment, and subsequent repayment attracted no adverse inference; the s.68 addition was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784714