← 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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 27(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the ld AO is allowed

ITA 3688/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Ar Acit, Circle- 27(1) Deepak Chanderbhan Sudhija 408, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, 225/226 Commodity Exchange, Vashi Railway Station Vs. Plot No.2/3/4 Sector-17, Vashi, Complex,Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Navi Mumbai -400 705 Mumbai-400 703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Banps6548H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Because, Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in exceeding the authority given under the Act, read with CBDT instructions for Limited Scrutiny iii. Because, Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in not obtaining the approval of the Principal CIT while completing assessment and the order passed ... 26/04/2015 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 2,77,340/- The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for limited scrutiny. The assessee is doing Business of Weighing Bridge Activities under the name and style of Star computerised weigh bridge and Chirag enterprise from Vashi

Shri. Santhakumar Damodaran Nadar, Trivandrum vs. The ITO, Ward -1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 950/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Soundararajan K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. R.Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

sourced from the business of poultry products and feeds), was selected for being subject to the verification procedure under the Act, i.e., as a limited scrutiny case, to verify the cash deposits during the year, at Rs.1004.41 lakhs. The same were found to be an undisclosed receipt of his business ... selected, with a view to enforce a check and balance upon the power of the assessing authority to do fishing and roving inquiry in limited scrutiny cases. The extension in scope of assessment would only be on the basis of inputs as to tax evasion for the relevant year provided

Krishnappa Govindappa, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 69Section 69A

external bills are not available because the public purchased mangoes from assessee’s garden directly. He also submitted that case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify the cash deposits and AO was satisfied with cash deposit in bank account and no addition was made

Chinna Ocha Thevar Rajendran, Madurai vs. ITO, Non Ward 1(7)., Madurai

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

ITA 1518/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1518/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Chinna Ocha Thevar Rajendran, The Income Tax Officer, 22, Rajendra 3Rd Street, Non-Ward-1(7), Karimedu, Madurai. Madurai-625 010. [Pan: Adgpr 0416 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144Section 154Section 69A

return of income on 04.12.2007 for AY 2017-18, wherein, he returned an income of Rs.2,36,679/-. Later, the return was selected for limited scrutiny and the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had not responded to his statutory notices. Therefore, he expressed his desire to pass

Shashi Bala Maheshwari, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 59(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3320/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Shashi Bala Maheshwari, Vs Ito, C 47/X2, Near Gtb Hospital, Ward-59(2), Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095. Delhi-110002. Pan-Aibpm9560E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Lakshiya Budhiraja, Ca Respondent By Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17.05.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271A

return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS on the issue of cash deposited during the year. Statutory notices were issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee to explain

DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi vs. Janpath Ventures Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 9015/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Sunny Mittal, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

report of AO. 7. In ground no. 1, the appellant has challenged that the AO has travelled beyond jurisdiction to the mandate of limited scrutiny. It is stated, as reproduced earlier that the AO has made certain enquiries, which was not warranted, looking to the limited mandate in limited scrutiny ... this regard, it is observed that this case has been initiated for limited scrutiny with the following reasons:- * Share application money received, whereas no allotment was made; * Low income in comparison of loan, advance and expenses. 7.2 It is further observed that the addition has been made for unexplained share

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

which were the basis of exercise of power under section 263 were, in fact, the issues which were considered by the AO in the limited scrutiny, culminating in the order of assessment and that the assessee had given proper explanation, which was taken note of by the AO while completing

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

which were the basis of exercise of power under section 263 were, in fact, the issues which were considered by the AO in the limited scrutiny, culminating in the order of assessment and that the assessee had given proper explanation, which was taken note of by the AO while completing

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

which were the basis of exercise of power under section 263 were, in fact, the issues which were considered by the AO in the limited scrutiny, culminating in the order of assessment and that the assessee had given proper explanation, which was taken note of by the AO while completing

Vijayraj Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 592/PUN/2024[AY2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.592/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vijayraj Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. Patsanstha Maryadit, S.No.80/1/22, Kunj Residency, Sudarshan Nagar, Pimple Gaurav- 411027. Pan : Aacav1042J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80P Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Of Rs.38,79,392/-, Disregarding The Appellant’S Contentions & Submissions In Support Of Its Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 8Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

declaring total income of Rs.78,990/-, after claiming deduction of Rs.38,79,392/- u/s 80P of the IT Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS in order to verify large deduction under chapter VI-A & low income in comparison to high loans/advances. The AO issued notice

Hardcore Viniyog P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 573/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR
Section 119Section 143(2)

excessive and illegal. 5. The Assessing Officer has further erred in confirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the scope of limited scrutiny having been expanded by the Assessing Officer without prior permission which is in violation of provisions of section 119 of the Income ... declaring total income of Rs. 7,271/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under the category of 'limited scrutiny' and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued against which the assessee fully complied by filing all the details and documents. 7. During the course

Sterling Greenwoods Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 342/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, A.RsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

assessee in the present case is a limited company and engaged in the business of real and resort. The assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the items detailed below: “i) Mismatch between income and receipts credited in the profit & loss account considered under the other heads of income ... book running from pages 1 to 493 and contended that the case for the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was selected for limited scrutiny as evident from the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, placed on pages 1-3 of the paper book

Mr. Pratapsingh Bankatsingh Rajput, Viyayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 622/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

assessee has filed his return of income on 24.04.2018 by declaring an income of Rs. 5,03,060/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and the reasons being cash deposit during demonetisation period. Hence, a notice u/s.143(2) was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, notice

Rohit Mishra, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 879/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rohit Mishra, The Ito B/13 Satyam Homes, Vs Ward-1(2)(2) Near Gayatri Nagar Society Vadodara Ranoli, Vadodara-391350 Pan: Bjvpm9647L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Vinit Mundra, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar:

For Appellant: Shri Vinit Mundra, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.2,51,370/- The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposits in savings bank account in comparison to the sales turnover. 3. The assessment was completed by the AO after issuing notices

Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar. vs. Deolali Pravara Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Deolali Pravara, Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 635/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)

income of Rs.47,49,927/- & taxable income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s 80P(2) of the IT Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 21.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of IT Act denying the claim

Anand Shaktikumar Sancheti, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

Facts in Brief:– The assessee filed his return of income electronically on disclosing total income at ` 91,89,490. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the assessee claimed deduction against income from other sources and dividend income. Notice under section

Rohtang Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69

whereby the assessment which is otherwise invalid has been upheld because the case of the assessee has been selected for limited scrutiny and the additions made were never subject matter of the limited scrutiny. 5. Facts in brief are that the assessee company filed its original return of income ... total income of Rs. NIL. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and on line notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was generated through on line digital signature and was issued and serviced

Income Tax Officer, Yavatmal vs. Sanjay Bansilal Jaiswal, Yavatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 324/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs.9,68,210/- on 12/10/2018. The case of the appellant was selected limited scrutiny for the reasons: "Large cash deposits in bank account(s)". Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued by the AO along with annexure were ... assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 9.68.210/-, Case of the assessee was Sanjay Bansilal Jaiswal ITA no.324/Nag./2023 selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons, "Large cash deposits in bank account(s) During the assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that the cash deposited pertains to the partnership

Rajalakshmi Reneabl;Es Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(4), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1395/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1395/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Rajalakshmi Renewables Private Ltd. Ito बनाम/ #66, Kurunji, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Ward-5(4) Vs. Chennai-600 010. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs-0503-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ASection 271BSection 40

Considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned. 2. From case records, it emerges that the assessee’s case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ vide notice u/s 143(2) dated 23-08-2018, a copy of which is on record. The point to be covered therein was to examine ... sought another opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) and also submitted that the only issue to be examined by Ld. AO in ‘limited scrutiny’ was to determine ‘expenses incurred for earning exempt income’ and nothing beyond. The impugned disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as initiation of penalty

The Shi vs. Amarth Multistate Co. Operative Credit Society Ltd., Sataravs.ITO Ward 1, Satara

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

ITA 188/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.188/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Shivsamarth Multistate Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Satara. Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., House No.211, Matoshree Krupa, Back Side, Talmavale High School, Patan, Satara- 415103. Pan : Aadat3637N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac); Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Appellate Order Without

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40Section 40ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

taxable income was declared as NIL in the return. The case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act was issued to the appellant on 3 22.09.2019. The appellant filed his submission on 16.03.2020 before the Assessing Officer. After