← All Phrases

“limited scrutiny”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)2,866 judgments

The decision most relied on for limited scrutiny is Vipan Khanna v. CIT (255 ITR 220), cited in 140 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on limited scrutiny

Vipan Khanna v. CIT
255 ITR 220 · 2002 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Assessment proceedings conclude and become final if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) is not served within the prescribed statutory period. This case also clarified the historical position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Amal Kumar Ghosh v. Asstt. CIT
361 ITR 458 · 2014 · High Court
39
citing judgments

The selection of cases for scrutiny must be completed within the time prescribed by CBDT instructions. The department is bound by its own standards and cannot act with discrimination or selectively apply them.

PCIT v. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd.
155 Taxmann.com 580 · 2023 · High Court
31
citing judgments

Assessing officers cannot introduce issues for inquiry that were not part of the original limited scrutiny, without adhering to mandatory procedural requirements.

Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT
125 Taxmann.com 83 · 2021 · High Court
25
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot travel beyond the scope of issues selected for limited scrutiny during the assessment proceedings.

PCIT v. Shark Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd.
151 Taxmann.com 71 · 2023 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Revisionary powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked to find fault with an assessment order on an issue not covered by 'limited scrutiny' where the Assessing Officer could not have examined such an issue.

CIT v. Smt. Padmavathi
120 Taxmann.com 187 · 2020 · High Court
20
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be held erroneous and prejudicial to revenue if the Assessing Officer (AO) could not have travelled beyond the issues forming the subject matter of 'limited scrutiny'. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke Section 263 to set aside an assessment on grounds not forming part of the limited scrutiny.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another
246 ITR 173 · 2000 · High Court
13
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer can initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 even if a scrutiny notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within the prescribed time, provided the conditions for Section 147 are met. An intimation under Section 143(1)(a) does not preclude recourse to Section 147.

Judgments citing limited scrutiny

Shokat Ali, Delhi vs. AO, Ward 60(7)/ Assessed by Ward 60(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7001/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7001/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18) Shokat Ali, D-54, Gali No. 2, Noor Aillahi, North Ghonda, New Delhi 110053 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Adgpa-3353-H बिाम Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-60(7), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Assessed By Ward 60(5), Vikas Bhawan, Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : None प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 15.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.5,70,680/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the issue of cash deposits during the demonetization period. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposited

Sadhika Ganni, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Rajahmundry

ITA 205/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Bhaskara Rao on 14.11.2016. 8. On a perusal of the record, we find that the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” through CASS for verifying the substantial amount of cash deposits made in her bank account, as reported in SFT-003, SFT-004, as the same were ... under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated 13 Sadhika Ganni 26.12.2019, we find that the case of the assessee was selected for “limited scrutiny” through CASS for verifying the substantial amount of cash that was deposited by her in her bank account during the subject year, as reported

Asp Engineers & Contractors, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2129/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 44A

activities, which filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs. 4,88,950/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer called for reconciliation of sales and purchases as per the return

Ranjana Devi, Maur Mandi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

declaring an income of Rs. 269960/- as on 06-07- 2017. 3. That the case of appellant was picked up for limited scrutiny proceedings for the reason of deposit of sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash in her saving bank account bearing I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 4 Assessment Year ... declaring an income of Rs. 269960/- as on 06-07- 2017. 12. That the case of appellant was picked up for limited scrutiny proceedings for the reason of deposit of sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in cash in her saving bank account bearing I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 6 Assessment Year

Arimilli Rama Krishna, West Godavari Dist vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

income of Rs. 6,04,940/- along with agriculture income of Rs. 55,200/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for “Limited scrutiny” under CASS to verify certain issues viz., (i) receipts u/s. 194C and u/s 194J (as per 26AS) were more than the receipts shown ... were initiated on issues that were unconnected to the issues that had formed the basis for selection of the case of the assessee for “Limited Scrutiny”. 4. Later on, the AO, based on the information that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under

Deepanshu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 46(5), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 4640/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial, Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant, Member

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144

declaring total income of Rs.4,46,370/-. The return of income was selected for ITA No.4640/Del/2025 Deepansu vs. ITO Ward46(5) Delhi Limited Scrutiny through CASS on the point of cash deposit during the year. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee

M.K. Gupta and Sons HUF, C/O Ca Sahil Gupta vs. ITO Ward 59(6), Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 915/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return for AY 2017-18 on 9/01/2018 declaring income of ₹459150/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of large Cash deposits and cash withdrawals made during the year. The assessee submitted that he was engaged in the business

Ekki Krishnamurthy HUF, Puttur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/BANG/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250

revised declaring agricultural income for Rs. 41,51,600/- only which was claimed as exempted under the Act. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of agricultural income. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that he holds 31.39 acers of land in own name

Kanakapura Venkataramanaswamy Madhusudhan Karthik, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No - 1, Ramamnagara, Karnataka

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2028/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Balram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 10(1)Section 250Section 69A

Page 6 of 11 be applied. The assessee also relied on various judicial precedents to contend that the AO had exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny and that the assessment order was therefore unsustainable in law. 5.5 The Ld. CIT(A) considered the assessment order and the submissions ... legally unsustainable. 7.3 It was also argued that the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the case was selected for limited scrutiny only for the purpose of verifying the agricultural income. Despite this, the AO treated the entire amount as unexplained income

Rasheswar Dey, Balasore vs. ACIT, Circle, Balasore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/CTK/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Rasheswar Dey Acit, Circle-Balasore Vs At-Soro, Kamarpur, Dist- Balasore, Odisha-756045. (Pan: Ahspd1655P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the notice u/s 143(2) has been issued to the assessee for limited scrutiny in respect of large cash deposits in the bank account during the year. It was the submission that one addition has been made of Rs.7 ... sheet as on 31.03.2017. It was the submission that this was also not an issue for which the assessment has been taken up for limited scrutiny. It was prayed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. 4. In reply

Ashwinkumar Shankarlal Patel (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 145(3)Section 69A

assessee filed return of income on 16-03-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 2,17,610/-. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny for large value of cash deposit during demonetization period and large agricultural income shown in ITR. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices for which

Gopalkrishna Narla Rao, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 6488/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishgopalkrishna Narla Rao, Income Tax Officer, A/12/46 Sunder Nagar Kalina, Ward 16(2)(4), Vs. Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400098 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpr 1916R Appellant By : Shri M Subramnian Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2026

For Appellant: Shri M SubramnianFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr.- DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee had his return of income on 29.10.2015, declaring income of Rs.21,23,140/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act seeking various details. In response to the notice issued

Prakashbhai Khengarbhai Dodiya, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward 1 Surendranagar, Surendranagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee, is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 790/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 790/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250

relevant time. He had filed his ITR for A.Y 2018-19 on 24.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs.12,12,660/-. It was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues of unsecured loans & bonus/commission to employees. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO issued various notices of hearing asking

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Sushil Kumar Surana, Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 198/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsushil Kumar Surana, A.C.I.T., C/O-Thansinghnathmal, A.T. Road, Circle-2, Vs. Opposite Apsara Cinema Hall, Guwahati. Guwahati-781001 (Assam) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awdps 3148 J Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate. Date Of Hearing: 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl
Section 68

income on 29/10/2017 declaring total income of ₹ 22,11,510/-. The case of the assessee 2 ACIT Vs Sushil Kr Surana was selected for limited scrutiny and the statutory notices alongwith questionnaire were issued to the assessee. The assessee complied the said questionnaire by furnishing the details as called

Dastagir Hamid Mujawar, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-2, Sangali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1851/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1851/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dastagir Hamid Mujawar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nath Galli, Near Mashedee, Ward-2, Sangli Vita At Post Vita, Tal. Khanapur, Sangli-415311 Maharashtra Pan : Awqpm0876L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 68

that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs.3,54,970/- declared in the return e-filed on 01.08.2017. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS for verification of “Large Cash deposited compared to returned income”. Statutory notices u/s.143(1)/142(1) were served 3 Dastagir Hamid Mujawar upon

Dugginnigari Subramaniyam Naidu, Tirupati vs. ACIT., Circle - 1(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1443/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. AO.

Section 133(6)Section 68

return of income for AY 2017-18 on 23-02-2018 declaring total income of Rs. 23,68,930/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS with a reason of verification of ‘Cash deposit during the year’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that

Nathan Anil Rao, Mumbai vs. The ITO -Circle 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

under section 68/Section 69 of the under section 68/Section 69 of the Income Tax Act which was the beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny Income Tax Act which was the beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny Income Tax Act which was the beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny assessment under

Rahul Aggarwal, India vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3), Civic Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 6053/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrahul Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, 7708 (77 Avenue), Ward-30(3), Second Floor, Dlf Phase-Iv, Vs. Delhi. Gurugram-122009, Haryana. Pan-Ahcpa7394J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mahna, Adv. & Shri Narender Goel, Adv. Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 08.08.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 17.03.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,08,280/- Which Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass-2018Cycle On The Reason Of “Credit Card Payments”. Rahul Aggarwal Vs. Ito

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

Rs.4,08,280/- which was processed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS-2018CYCLE on the reason of “Credit Card Payments”. Rahul Aggarwal vs. ITO Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated ... From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny regarding credit card payments. Ld. AO made addition of Rs.12,77,331/- as amount of payment made towards the credit card bill dues u/s 69 as unexplained

Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward 1(5), Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4145/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

case are that assessee had filed return of income on 27.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.20,68,030/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 08.07.2017 was issued by DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgaon. The case was transferred from DCIT, Circle

Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association, Gurgaon vs. ITO-Ward 1(5)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4144/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No.4145/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon. Sector-22, Mullahera, Vs. Old Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana. Pan-Aaaag5591K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.R. Sahu, Ca Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against Orders Dated 13.06.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Orders Dated 28.12.2018 & 13.11.2019 Of Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1(5), Gurgaon For Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Gurgaon One Resident Welfare Association Vs. Ito

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 57

case are that assessee had filed return of income on 27.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.20,68,030/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 08.07.2017 was issued by DCIT, Circle-1, Gurgaon. The case was transferred from DCIT, Circle