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position that reassessment under Section 147/148 was restricted to issues for which reasons were recorded, a view superseded by Explanation 3 to Section 147.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

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 490/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

under the head “Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. Stock valuation ii. Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer vs. Shree Cement Ltd, Beawar

ITA 489/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

under the head “Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. Stock valuation ii. Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building

Parimala Shylaja Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for

ITA 99/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Parimala Shylaja Rudrappa, V. The Ito, No.179, Ground Floor, Vishwa Ward-3(2)(1), Services, Opp: Bda Complex, Bangalore. Ringh Road, Nagarabhavi 2Nd Stage,Bangalore-560 072. [Pan: Aqppr 2833 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balachandran, LdFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale
Section 250Section 69A

under the head ‘income from business or profession’ by filing return of income on 17.02.2018 which was processed by CPC and subsequently, selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason ‘cash deposits during the year’. Accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the Assessee, in response to which, the Assessee

Darshan Construction, Byculla vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3502/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 269SSection 43C

order u/s 263 of the Act, we find that the initially, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act was selected for limited scrutiny i.e. high turnover reported in service tax return compared to ITR and mismatch in sale turnover reported in Audited report and ITR. The PCIT ... PCIT order dated 26.02.2019. It is very strange how the AO could reach at a decision to convert the limited scrutiny case into the complete scrutiny case if he is not allowed to look beyond the reasons for limited scrutiny during the assessment proceedings. It is also very important

ITO-41(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Ramanlal Agarwal (HUF), Mumbai

ITA 1492/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri.P.D.Chougule.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 disclosing a total income of Rs.2,48,290/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny for limited scrutiny under CASS for verification of (i) purchase of property reported in Form 26QB and (ii) Large investment in property (AIR) as compared to total ... 31st August, 2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,48,290/- (page nos. 1 to 74 of Paper book). The case was selected for limited scrutiny. 2During the year under appeal, the Appellant had purchased two residential premises for Rs.7,55,85,000/-. The funds for the acquisition were derived from

Chintala Bhaskara Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 148/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.148/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Chintala Bhaskara Rao Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.8-272-8/2, Vuda Colony (Appeals) Gopalapatnam Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aiwpb2409G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Srirama Murthy, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

that the assessee filed his return of income on 22.11.2016, admitting a taxable income of Rs.10,23,650/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify whether the cash deposit has been made from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notices

Saravanan Priya, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1245/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

that assessee filed her return of 3. income for the relevant assessment year 2016-2017 on 16.09.2016. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify ‘’whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed’’. Consequently, a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued

Rajesh Motors (Cars) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा

Excellent Embroidery and Looms, Navapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Dhule, Dhule

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

ITA 876/PUN/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Feb 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Hon.Excellent Embroidery & Vs Ito, Ward-4, Dhule. Looms, Main Road, At Post Navapur, Taluka Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar, Maharashtra Pan: Aadfe 3382 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2024 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was filed on 28/02/2017 declaring a loss of Rs. 985/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 27/12/2017 passed u/sec. 143(3) assessed

Dipikaben Ashwinbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 926/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 926/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Dipikaben Ashwinbhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shah Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. 2488 Navo Vas, Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Kalupur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adkps6235N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Nirav Malkan, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024

For Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

appellant, an individual, filed her return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,92,770/-. Upon selection of case for limited scrutiny under CASS, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 03.09.2015 followed by notice under Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire dated

Fca Engineering India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.684/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S.Fca Engineering – The Pcit-1, India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. 6Th Floor, Chennai One It Sez-Phase Ii, Opus Block Pallavaram- Thoraipakkam 200 Feet Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan:Aagca 6907 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Ashik Shah, Ca : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30.01.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Section 263

neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the :: 6 :: Revenue. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the claim of any other amount allowable as deduction under ‘Schedule-BP’ which contains debit of ‘lease equalization charges’ also

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

assessee company had filed its return of income declaring profit of Rs. 16,08,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the basis of the CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 03.09.2015 and duly served upon the assessee. During the year under consideration ... assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 16,08,560/- for assessment year 2014-15 on 30/09/2014. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The assessment stands completed on total income of Rs. 1,42,96,430/-, vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/10/2016, by making

Vijay Srinivas Bobba, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 833/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vijay Srinivas Bobba, Vs. Dcit, Flat No.502, Indraprastha Ruhe, Circle – 2(2)(1), Pattandur Agrahara Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aitpb 9536 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 26.11.2018 claiming relief under sections 90 and 91 of the Act. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had submitted that while

Laxmi Aggarwal, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3341/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyalaxmi Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (4), Hn – 18, Ward 5, Faridabad. Brahmin Wara, Ballabgarh – 121 004 (Haryana). (Pan : Byppa0703G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Order : 12.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 69A

return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 19.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,04,200/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS with the reason 'Large value of cash deposit during demonetization period.' During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee

Al A S Real Estate Ans Developers P Ltd, Ratlam vs. The ITO -1, Ratlam

ITA 181/IND/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2018-19 Al A S Real Estate & Pr. Commissioner Of Developers Private Ltd., Income-Tax-1, बनाम/ 82, Nolaipura, Indore Vs. Ratlam (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aakca 0026 H Assessee By Shri Rajesh Mehta, Ca & Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08.02.2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

made” whereas the AO has clearly noted in Para No. 1 and 2 of assessment-order as under: “1. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny assessment under the e- assessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S.No. Issues i. Verification of Genuineness of Expenses 2. On the above issue

Cholan Paper and Board Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-1 Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 679/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.679/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Cholan Paper & Board Private Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Limited,No. 1, Bukkathurai, Nh 45, Income Tax, Chennai-1, Bukkuathurai, Kancheepuram District, Chennai. Tamil Nadu 603 308. [Pan:Aaacc1363M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L. Natarajan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-1, Chennai, Dated 28.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(7)

under section 143(1) of the Act on 02.10.2019 and the income was assessed at ₹.13,10,210/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of (i) duty drawback, (ii) unsecured loans & (iii) disallowance u/s. 40A(7) (Gratuity Provision). The assessment proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s ... notice under section 142(1) of the Act, all the questions raised by the Assessing Officer mere with regard to loans only under “Limited Scrutiny” were replied. It was further submission that under column 6(M) of the statutory return, it was specifically mentioned that there was no provision

Devarshi Commercials LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT -17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1894/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1894/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) Devarshi Commercial Llp, 84-A, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aahfd-1854-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate With Shri Nimesh Vora, Sr.A.R Revenue By : Ms. Agnes P. Thomas सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/03/2023, For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) On Solitary Ground I.E. Disallowance Of Interest Claimed U/S. 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]. The Assessee Vide Application Dated 16/10/2023 Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal, The Same Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Nimesh Vora, Sr.A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Agnes P. Thomas
Section 111ASection 14ASection 36Section 57

Rs.2,29,20,562 u/s. 57 (iii) of the Act which was beyond its jurisdiction as the same was not a subject matter of 'limited scrutiny' assessment proceedings in which the assessment order was passed. 2. Failed to appreciate that the interest expenditure ... this belated stage. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Assessing Officer has acted within his jurisdiction and has not crossed the line of limited scrutiny. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides on the issue of admission of additional grounds of appeal. After examining additional grounds

M R Apparels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 198/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

reproduced below: The assessee filed original ITR on 30/3/2016 declaring returned income of Rs. 14,000/- The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, wherein verification of sale consideration of property was one of the scrutiny reasons. The assessing officer (AO) completed scrutiny assessment ... filed its income tax return for AY2015-16 declaring income of Rs 14,000/- b. The return of income picked up for the limited scrutiny through CASS and one of the reasons was sale of property reported in form 26QB (i.e. Tax deducted by buyer from sale consideration

Karamveer Electronics Limited, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1223/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Devashish Bhadauria, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)

that the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 73,88,620/–. Return was selected for limited scrutiny and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Reason for scrutiny selection was issue of share premium. 5. Returned income was assessed ... shares. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the ld. PCIT. We find that the return of income was selected for limited scrutiny for issue of share premium. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act served upon the assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings

ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Longia Engineers, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 250Section 263Section 263(1)

right in concluding prematurely, and precipitately. based on the in-personam orders of its various other sister benches that a matter not involving limited scrutiny in an earlier proceeding cannot be invoked u/s 263 of the Act, when the only judicially mandated condition of the Hon'ble Courts in ordering ... right in concluding prematurely, and precipitately based on the in-personam orders of its various other sister benches that a matter not involving limited scrutiny in an earlier proceeding cannot be invoked u/s 263 of the Act, when the only judicially mandated condition of the Hon'ble Courts in ordering